I . 345:7. II 'I' I‘ :‘uV..':t" :‘E‘VVl-Q .. Am .‘ . .-.~ it“, ‘ hi! : WI§'|'€IHY ' 1-1:“??? \ . fl , ' ' ' "‘yh’lf' ‘. ' ' .‘." "\U'L: ff? .w“ N.¢'%’$fl ~ ' 2. . " * Itk'YI ".41).. ”3'\J\M‘\" "\ku" (fig. 1%.." . mg: ~ MI ' 4.. ' ' I}HIL 321;“; 5:“;‘)‘:\I' ” |\I. .' . . I‘d-1.5%? "‘I".I\“‘ ”f M"; It“ I" ~ I ' _ A. 2% :\‘\: ”3:5" ?§’3 :1. 0‘5:-‘-'-$x‘g‘ . “ I. '.- . ‘ 19‘ 3‘. t‘ ' "III\.‘I *%&ng . I f. I . I I 1") ‘ific‘l', R» 5:37;) II'.'. bIVV l) h" 5... PC " %k) "W: ‘3"). " "W ,'§"fi\\}“~ : ' -.“«~.'I'.'x":‘.‘c«" . .V .'....“ vflw . V I- L. ‘0: ‘. ‘I‘ -.-‘ .369“ ;....;.“ 1 1‘- :n‘. .IIA. «‘ .. ..- fig}: v.4 " I‘IV‘V-‘w'. ' .'.:‘\I'I‘:" ."VI),I‘I‘ "I‘O‘Ik‘L 51-4 k‘:'.""I’,E“I."I .'.)"- Wk V .9?» .4... ,. ~ '. V . JUN” "33;.“ -.1V}-'?I‘ L.‘1"‘3(£U“L .‘j‘t‘ .Vn.” III) _‘ .u . .I. “I I“ ' 3 ~o’ 6‘ v— c A .1"..an ‘ “165‘ ..w \i’kw ‘ k '1'” '; V A. 4‘ a . 2.? "K I fi-r 1 --'2 W. 7' ' Q I j: ”v, "it"? I}; . .-. . ."., . v. .. "‘:g(Z"';‘:‘!zy‘". ..m. .. a- , «337-- " VI VI‘vVO;I_ I! [no . c o_. I . . _. v‘v . ‘-‘Y o-II‘ .1IVI _ 0': III: Q‘ _ HI JI':'. . -o .. .- up“.- A 4" I W‘. , Imam.“ ' wLu . ‘ ' ' .l‘l - v. I . ..‘I‘.‘..- I N". . VH‘ I Lu" ' ‘ " f’f..V ‘ .' f ‘ . ' I l 5“": I fu‘I’n‘f)‘ V '- I O' 1 I - (.‘.I n a, I ”I“ i . \' ~ . . . 'n‘. 5- ' 'if‘i‘ 33f. .. IVIIII'I-HI‘H'L ' .'..I’ (.25... Iuw J" ”‘8': WI)“ .19" h” I .‘ ..Il UI'.‘.:'-x' A.“ . . '.'L:‘ I ..I£.‘I V :l‘l || - V‘I .VV'VIVII ‘9 WFS-zi This is to certify that the thesis entitled HOLDING THE LINE: ETHNIC BOUNDARY PROCESSES IN A NORTH LABRADOR COMMUNITY. presented by John C. Kennedy has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Anthropology Major professor Date 9 November 1978 0-7639 @ Copyright by JOHN CHARLES KENNEDY 1978 HOLDING THE LINE: ETHNIC PROCESS IN A NORTHERN LABRADOR COMMUNITY By John Charles Kennedy A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Anthropology T978 érv/CJKLg’ 7(f’24 . ABSTRACT HOLDING THE LINE: ETHNIC PROCESS IN A NORTHERN LABRADOR COMMUNITY by John Charles Kennedy This study describes the process by which two different peoples utilize aspects of their perceived cultural heritage to communicate ethnic distinctiveness. These peoples, the so-called "Settlers" of Makkovik and northern Inuit (Eskimos) forcibly relo- cated to this small northern Labrador community are analyzed as ethnic categories rather than as races or classes. While Settlers and Inuit keep to themselves, engaging in minimal socio-economic relations with those of the other category, competition between both peoples is rare as are relations of overt conflict. The prob- lem originates from these "relations of separateness" and focuses on the symbolic process by which ethnic boundaries are continuously re-defined and maintained. Data were primarily collected using standard anthropological participantfobservation techniques during thirteen months of field research. Given the local sensitivity of the topic investigated, formal, directed interviewing methods proved less satisfactory than less formal techniques. Consequently, while much of the data were gathered through observation, other relevant data emerged in the process of interviewing Settlers and Inuit on topics not directly related to ethnicity. Moreover, given that the research was a John Charles Kennedy restudy of an earlier study of Makkovik, it was possible to record and analyze data indicating continuities and changes in the community. Following the field period, in addition to analysis of the field data, additional archival materials were collected and examined to investi- gate the historical component of contemporary ethnic processes. Data are presented in six chapters. The first critically examines certain theoretical concepts, primarily relating to ethnicity, considered relevant to the Makkovik case. A second chapter documents the historical emergence of the categories Settler and Inuit while a third chapter describes the contemporary subsistence and wage economies of both Makkovik‘s peoples. The fourth chapter describes the social dimension of community organization, illustrating both the scarce nature of Settler-Inuit relations and the distinct preference each ethnic category has for various institutions which affect them both. The fifth chapter utilizes socio-economic and cultural field data to illustrate Settler and Inuit efforts at con- tinued boundary maintenance. This process entails each people attaching an ethnically-specific meaning to particular past and present culture traits, institutions, and behavioural patterns which, significantly need not be dramatically different to be con- sidered locally important. For example, both peoples hunt various species of sea mammals in an identical fashion yet retrieve them using different technology. Such differing retrieval technology has become symbolically associated with each ethnic category. Building on both theoretical and empirical materials, the chapter concludes by presenting four interrelated generalizations about John Charles Kennedy ethnic boundary maintaining processes. The final chapter explains how two fundamental facts affecting Makkovik enable Settlers and Inuit to continue their separate yet relatively non-competitive relations. While these facts, Inuit relocation and the increasingly important role of externally-based sources of sustenance and control provide an administrative climate for continued ethnic separatism, the study concludes that both pe0ples consider the potential for greater conflict real and minimize such possibility by exaggerating ethnic differences and limiting inter-ethnic relations. The significance of the study applies to comparative cases where different peoples have been suddenly brought into continuous contact, either through urbanization, migration, or social mobility. The relevance of ethnic concepts for analyzing such cases is suggested as is further concentration on how peoples use culture to solve social organizational problems inherent in situations of cultural contact. To Joseph and Gladys ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Field research on which this study is based was part of the Memorial University of Newfoundland's Institute of Social and Economic Research project, Identity and Modernity in the East Arctic (l968-1972), sponsored by the Canada Council as part of its Killam Awards Programme. I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the Institute's support, both during and since my period as a Ph.D. Fellow (June 1, l97l to August 3l, l973). A number of individuals gave of their time and energies in the development of my anthropological perspective and in the comple- tion of the dissertation. To my early professors in Anthropology, particularly Professor Arnold M. Withers of the University of Denver, and Dr. Nancy D. Munn of the University of Massachusetts, I record my appreciation. Special thanks are also extended to Drs. Joseph Spielberg, Arthur Rubel, and Robert McKinley of the Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, members of my Ph.D. Guidance Committee. Dr. Rubel's many helpful suggestions deserve special acknowledgment, particularly since he and Dr. McKinley generously agreed to serve on my committee some years after I com- pleted my Ph.D. course work at Michigan State University. Dr. Charles Morrison, also of the Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, attended my oral defense and made a number of . helpful suggestions. To my Committee Chairperson, Dr. Leonard Kasden, formerly of Michigan State and presently with Dalhousie iii University, Halifax, Canada, I owe a very special debt. 0n numerous occasions, I benefited from Professor Kasdan's support and broad anthrOpological expertise, both during and since my days as his student. Grateful acknowledgments are also extended to a number of my colleagues in the Department of Anthropology at Memorial University who commented on various drafts of the dissertation. These include Drs. Jean Briggs, Robert Paine, Adrian Tanner, George Park and Professor Louis Chairamonte. Dr. Douglas House, of Memorial University's Department of Sociology, read the final draft and made a number of extremely helpful comments. To Robert Paine, who encouraged me through all stages of the study and helped shape my understanding of ethnicity in Makkovik, I express my profound appre- ciation. Dr. Paine directed the Institute's Killam Project and was instrumental in initiating a restudy of Ben-Dor's Makkovik; I can only hope my study fulfills some of his original expectations. To Dr. Shmuel Ben-Dor, of the University of Negev, Israel, I also record my appreciation. I met Dr. Ben-Dor prior to entering the field and though our interpretations of Makkovik are not always compatible, my respect for his contribution to our understanding of ethnicity in northern Labrador is profound. Thanks are also due to Professor Terje Brantenberg of the Institute of Social Sciences, Tromsd University, Norway. As a friend and fellow student of northern Labrador, Terje freely gave of his knowledge and assistance, both during and since the field period. iv I wish to also thank Mr. Ralston King, formerly Director of the Province's Labrador Services Division and now Deputy Minister of the Department of Rural Development as well as Mr. John Sweetland and Mr. Almond Flynn of Labrador Services Division. I am also grateful to Mr. Larry Coady of Environment Canada who patiently answered my many queries about the marine resources of Labrador. To the Rev. Victor Launder of the Moravian Mission and to Nurse Carolyn Cayzer Andersen of the International Grenfell Association I offer a belated but sincere thanks. During and since the field period I have benefited immeasur- ably from innumerable conversations about Labrador with my friend. Fred Andersen, himself of Makkovik, and that community's first University graduate. Fred read the dissertation and discussed its thesis with me at some length. I would also like to thank my neighbours, the Norman Parker family of Topsail, Newfoundland. Their friendship and unbounded hospitality helped ease what is always the traumatic experience of writing a dissertation. My acknowledgments would indeed be incomplete without warmly thanking the peOple of Makkovik, too numerous to mention by name, for tolerating yet another anthropologist in their community. They welcomed me in their homes, patiently assisted my clumsy efforts to join them on hunting and fishing trips, and attempted at all times to make me feel at home. Like peoples everywhere. Makkovik Settlers and Inuit maintain a well-deserved pride in their heritage; I share that esteem, thank them for their help, and stand beside them in their struggle. Lastly, I thank my parents, whose loving support is a major factor in the completion of this study and to whom I've dedicated it. In gratefully acknowledging all of the individuals mentioned above, I also absolve them of any blame for errors which might appear in the pages that follow. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . LIST OF MAPS LIST OF APPENDICES . Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION The Problem . . . Background and Focus . Theoretical Concepts . The Old Ethnicity The New Ethnicity Boundary Maintenance as a Symbolic Process I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Establishment of the Moravian Mission . Inuit of the Contact Period and l9th Century . Culture Change The Settlers Makkovik: Historical Notes The Relocation of the Northern Inuit THE ECONOMY . Introduction . The Seasonal Use of Local Natural Resources Spring. . Summer . Fall Winter . vii Page ix xi xii Chapter Page Sources of Cash in the Makkovik Economy . . . . . . lOS Year-Round Employment . . . . . . . . . lOS Seasonal or Temporary Wage Labour . . . . . . . 106 Government Subsidies . . . . . . . . lll Distribution, Exchange, and Utilization . . . . ll7 Critique of Ben-Dor' s Rational- Traditional Thesis . . 129 IV. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 The Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 The 'Natuk Peoples' . . . . . . . . . . . . l4l The Hebron Inuit. . . . . . . . . 143 Status Distinctions Among Settlers . . . . . . . l45 Factors Affecting Ethnic Identity . . . . . . . lSO Demographic Processes . . . . . . . . . . lGl Settler-Inuit Relations . . . . . . . . . . . I69 Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l79 Leisure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l97 V. BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE: SOME EXAMPLES AND CONCLUSIONS . 206 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Ethnic Boundary Maintenance: Some Examples . . . . 208 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Introduction . . . . . . . 235 Accommodation and Boundary Maintenance as an Adaptation to Relocation '. . . . . . . . . . 237 External Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 viii Table \DGJVOWU'l-bw 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Moravian Mission Stations in Labrador . Makkovik Population Composition and Growth: 1982-1972 . . . . . Bay Settler Homesteads and Population: 1935 . Northern Labrador Communities: 1955 Salmon-Trout Sales to the Division: 1971 and 1972 Boat Ownership: September 1972 . Mode of Transportation: Winter 1972 Employment: June 1973 . Makkovik Community Council LIP Projects, 1972 Estimated Sample of Makkovik Household Economies Sample Shopping List: August - Early September 1974 . Makkovik Luxury Items: 1973 . Language Usage and Ethnicity: Makkovik, July 1972 Demographic Processes, Makkovik: 1955-1972 . Makkovik Population: July 1972 . Seals Sold to the Division, 1971-1972 . Migratory Sea Birds . ix Page 40 57 60 64 83 85 98 104 110 116 122 125 153 162 168 259 265 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Nutak-Okak Family Group: 1960 . . . . . . . . 142 2. Makkovik Settler Elite and Local Politics . . . . 147 3. Makkovik's Most Complete Hebron Ilarit: 1971-1972 . 164 LIST OF MAPS Map Page 1. Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Makkovik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 xi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I. II. III. LABRADOR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT . Physiography Oceans and Ice Climate . . . . . Vegetation and Forests . Land Fauna . Sea Fauna Birds . . . . Sea Invertebrates Fish . . . Conclusion . METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Methods and Problems The Merits of Restudies INUIT DEATHS: MAKKOVIK 1959-1969 xii Page 246 247 252 254 256 258 264 266 266 272 273 274 275 277 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem This study describes the process by which two different kinds of people use aspects of their perceived cultural heritage as symbols to maintain ethnic distinctiveness. These two people are ethnic categories, that is, collectivities of people, each with differences of language and culture, existing within a larger socio-cultural system (Cohen 1974a:92). Historic cultural contact has produced many similarities in their lifestyles though their concern is, as my own will be, with existing differences. My focus is on the way individuals from both ethnic categories utilize cultural differences for social purposes, yet this focus is also dialectically interrelated to a general absence of relations between people of both categories. We shall see that they have only recently become reluctant "neighbours," that they exploit a common natural environment, and are jointly administered by a common array of externally-based insittutions. One might assume that the sharing of a common environment and the distinctiveness both seek to main- tain might lead to Open conflict or competition between them, yet, on the whole, such is not the case, largely because the goals and interests each holds regarding their common situation as neighbours are different, sometimes radically so. Though occasional deprecatory remarks are passed about (but seldom to) people in the other category, inter-ethnic relations, to the extent to which they occur, can also be overtly cordial. The two ethnic categories which this study concerns are the Settlers and Igujt_(Eskimos) of Makkovik, a northern Labrador com- munity of approximately 300 people (see Map l). Labrador 'Settlers' are the descendants of Europeans who came to coastal Labrador in the last century. Most early Settlers arrived as single men; some later married Inuit women, and borrowed many elements of aboriginal Inuit (and, to a lesser extent, Indian) culture. As a result, contemporary Settlers are physically and culturally similar to Inuit. This similarity is important but the fact that modern Settlers believe they are better than, and unlike Inuit, largely explains Settler efforts to maintain their boundaries. Thus, for example, we shall see that Makkovik Settlers avoid using harpoons, as well as other traits or behaviour which they maintain are appropriately 'Eskimo.‘ Somewhat ironically, early Settlers originally founded Makkovik while the second ethnic category which this study concerns, the Inuit, were relocated there by external authorities in the late 19505. This fact will also be seen to be of important consequence because Makkovik Settlers have a different interpretation of living in the community than do the relocated Inuit. The adaptation of Inuit to Makkovik has not been an easy one; even today, their interests remain with their homeland further north, rather than with their adopted community. ooo‘ ' . I " i4. 5“)" . ' —‘ "'°'" \. ’- £40RADOR 85A ,V w‘ ,«2 - ." m»- can...” my Vllhy l.--Labrador Background and Focus Makkovik people may claim the dubious distinction of having hosted two anthropologists within one decade. Between September 1962 and September 1963, Shmuel Ben-Dor conducted ethnographic research in the community, followed by my research in 1971—1972 (see Appendix II). Since Ben-Dor's study (1966) served as an impetus for my research and effectively provides a baseline for this study, some attention to the Makkovik he described as well as to the conclusions and shortcomings of his study is necessary. At the time of Ben-Dor's research (as today), Makkovik was essentially a small, susbistence-based community. Like other northern Labrador villages, it was both geographically and economically marginal from the Province of Newfoundland-Labrador, of which it was part. Its total population numbered but 324 people (cf. Table 2), roughly divided equally between the aforementioned Settlers and Inuit, the latter ethnic category only having been relocated to Makkovik a few years before Ben-Dor arrived. Settlers and Inuit resided in different sections of the community and interacted primarily with others of their own kind. Thus, Settlers and Inuit fished in separate crews each summer for cod fish, then the most economically important resource. Likewise, each fall and winter, ethnically- separate hunting parties pursued several species of seal, waterfowl, and caribou (see Appendix I). Ben-Dor described the economy of the Settlers and Inuit at two different levels of abstraction. On the one hand, gross similar- ities in the exploitative patterns of Settlers and Inuit were noted, while on the other, certain contrasts in economic priorities became, in effect, a leitmotif around which his interpretation of Settlers and Inuit was built. For example, Ben-Dor argued that Inuit pro- longed seal hunting each spring at the expense of preparations essential for the summer cod fishery while, in contrast, Settlers more efficiently planned each season around existing available resources. Ben-Dor's observations led him to adopt Weber's (1964) ideal concepts of “rational" and "traditional" economic orientations, the former being linked to the Settlers, the latter to Inuit. On the basis of these contrasting rational and traditional economic adaptations, Ben-Dor extrapolates to other sectors of each category's socio-cultural life. Thus, the importance of kinship among Inuit channels and constrains their socio-economic patterns more extensively than with Settlers. The majority of Makkovik Inuit belong to one of three (of several northern Labrador) jlarjt_or personal kindreds, relatively well-bounded "quasi-groups," providing the individual with a social setting broader than the nuclear family (Ben-Dor 1966:73). Inuit economic partnerships, sharing relationships, household visiting networks, social occasions, and, to a large extent, marriages occur within one's ilarit, thereby restricting a person from a potentially wider socio-economic network. Settler social organization is fundamentally distinguished from that of the Inuit through the principle of friendship, an institution Ben-Dor (1966:85) argues acts to ”supplement kinship ties and often outweigh them as a principle of social transaction." Friendship enables Settlers a broader array of social relationships than that based solely on kinship and, thereby allows Settlers greater flexibility in socio-economic arrangements. In short, Ben- Dor infers that the contrasting economic themes of rational and traditional have their social counterparts in friendship and kinship. Ben-Dor devotes two chapters to religion in Makkovik. Settlers and Inuit are adherents of the Moravian church (see below), though, as Ben-Dor argues, each approaches religion differently and these differences are, once again, linked to the aforementioned rational-traditional dichotomy. To Inuit, participation in Church life is a matter of extreme importance. Regular Sunday and special festival days are well attended and approached with a "military-like" formality. Inuit also participate in two church administrative bodies, the elders and chapel servants, and readily volunteer time for church maintenance. In short, an Inuk's (one Inuit) participation in church life figures prominently in any evaluation of his social and moral standing. Inuit are described as thoroughly "Moravian Inuit," steadfastly resisting efforts at modernization of ritual procedures occasionally proffered by missionaries. Ben-Dor describes the Settler version of religion as measuring a person's religiosity less on church participation and more on the quality of daily behavior. Consequently, Settler participation in church rituals is both less extensive and more casual than that of Inuit. Both Settler and Inuit religious systems also contain what Ben-Dor called "accretions," integrated ritual events occurring outside the Church yet partially based on religious influences. Most exotic of these is the Inuit ritual of the "Naluyuks," essentially a form of Christmas mumming, annually celebrated on the Feast of the Epiphany. That night, costumed Inuit mummers (ideally three) approach the Inuit neighbourhood from the east, apparently mimmicking the three Wise Men; they visit each house where assembled children solemnly perform a song before being rewarded with candy or gifts by the Naluyuks. Ben-Dor viewed the Settler Easter Monday races as another accretion. Though primarily secular in content, the practice of holding various competitive events (e.g., dog team races, shooting contests, etc.) each Monday following Easter was fused to the official church calendar through its timing as well as by the prac- tice of celebrating the Moravian "Love Feast" in the late afternoon. While the consequences of what Ben-Dor viewed as the rational and traditional economic behaviour of Settlers and Inuit coloured his interpretations of both peOples, his main argument centres on the absence of Settler-Inuit social relationships in relation to the concept of community. Ben-Dor questions the utility of traditional anthropological definitions of the concept community (e.g., Linton 1936; Murdock 1949) for describing Makkovik. He maintains that such definitions characterize a community as an "integrated social village sharing a comnon culture" (1966:3), and suggests instead that Makkovik might better be termed a multicellular-type community in which two ethnic groups, expressing separate cultures, are linked to a common territory by a common "superimposed administration" (1966:200). While I agree that Makkovik can accurately be labeled a multicellular-type community, there are two conclusions which emerge from Ben-Dor's analysis which cannot be supported by my data. One is the aforementioned rational-traditional depiction of Settler and Inuit economic behaviour while the other forecasts that in time, the Settler group will assimilate Inuit and ethnically-mixed persons. I will have a good deal more to say on my objections to both conclusions in Chapters III and IV. The original interest in "restudying" Makkovik (see Appendix II) centered on two questions: (1) what effect would the passage of some time have on maintaining or altering the ethnic situation described by Ben-Dor and (2) what implications result from the fact that common institutions (e.g., provincial government, Moravian Mission, and so on) serve both Settlers and Inuit (Paine 1968). While my research in Makkovik was obviously and inescapably influenced by these questions and others raised by Ben-Dor, a number of new circumstances affecting Makkovik seemed to raise new questions. Upon arriving in the community in July 1971, it was apparent that a number of important changes had occurred since 1962-63. Perhaps most obvious was the fact that only about one half of the Inuit listed in Ben-Dor's August 1963 census remained in Makkovik. I soon discovered that many Inuit had emigrated from Makkovik to Nain (a more northerly community-~see Map I), and initially hypothesized that, perhaps, the social segregation described by Ben-Dor and obvious in 1971, might have caused the Inuit exodus. While this was the interpretation of Makkovik Settlers, I soon began to discover that the out migration of Inuit occurred despite rather than because of the absence of social relations between Settler and Inuit. Interviews with Makkovik Inuit, as well as Inuit who had moved from Makkovik, revealed two 'causes' of emigration: access to better hunting and fishing areas and a desire to rejoin kinsmen. Notwithstanding the fact that many Inuit had left Makkovik, the content of relations between those Inuit who remained and Makkovik Settlers still appeared to be the dominant problem for any study of the community. Thus, I initially focused on the character, social settings, and importance of inter-ethnic relations, when and where they occurred. As will become evident in the empirical material presented below, these 'relations of separateness' in what Ben-Dor had called a multicellular community are not, in many ways, the kind of social relationships commonly found in small communities. Among other things, my observations and conversations led me to the view that a number of variables (such as setting, situation, and so on) affected the tone of inter-ethnic relations. For example, while such relations were normally infrequent, reserved, and formal within Makkovik, relations outside the community (e.g., on hunting or fishing trips) could be less guarded from whatever social implica- tions are thought to result from relaxation of the ethnic border in Makkovik. After some months in the community, I increasingly came to the view that the social schism between Settlers and Inuit 10 constituted, in itself, an adaptation to the changing circumstances of co-residence. Rather than increasing inter-ethnic contact or some form of assimilation (as Ben-Dor had predicted), co-residence and the pride each group appeared to have in its cultural heritage, seem to require an interactional code limiting more "normal" or "complete" inter-group relations. This interactional code ultimately appears linked to the local realization of the latent potential for conflict. It also became increasingly clear that deSpite the broad similarities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wage-labour, etc.) in the lifestyle of Settlers and Inuit, each focused on the differences, some of which conveyed a special, ethnically- idiosyncratic meaning. Thus, I came to pay special attention to what Settlers and Inuit respectively claimed as their own, or put differently, what each considered appropriately the domain of the other. These symbols of difference and their role in maintaining each category's definition of distinctiveness and ordered "non- relations“ became the focus of my research. Theoretical Concepts Since my thesis--that Settlers and Inuit claim aspects of their perceived cultural heritage to communicate ethnic affiliation-- builds on relevant earlier studies, a critical examination of various theoretical concepts and previous research is necessary. My brief introductory remarks above refer to Settlers and Inuit as ethnic categories. Though not without its semantic difficulties, this classification appears suited to the Makkovik 11 case for several reasons. Neither Settlers nor Inuit can be said to be grgups in the formal sense of this term though as socio-cultural entities, their "aims" and organizational properties resemble what Freeman (1961) calls "quasi-groups," Boissevain (1968) "non-groups," and Cohen (1974a) "informal groups." The concept of category resembles these types of groups; specifically, it refers to organizational forms larger than that of social role yet not as con- crete as group. I should indicate here that my acceptance of concept cateogry as opposed to group is supported by significant differences between the ethnic processes I describe below and similar processes among ethnic groups such as the Basques, Hutterites, Chicanos, or French Canadians. Unlike these groups, which are frequently formally organized and use ethnic symbols to communicate to a broader, national or international audience, Settlers and Inuit claim ethnic symbols for local organizational purposes, namely to redefine the appropriate parameters of ethnic behaviour and reduce the possibility of conflict. In its essential characteristics, how- ever, the use of ethnic symbols by Makkovik's two ethnic categories is part of a broader phenomenon occurring among ethnic groups in various parts of the world. I also consider the concept of ethnic categories preferable to concepts such as race, class, or cultural groups. My rejection of the concept race is clearly supported by the basic facts of the Makkovik case; that is, a person's status as Settler or Inuk is grounded in socio-cultural rather than physiological realities. As Ben-Dor correctly observed, "one cannot divide the groups 12 (Settlers and Inuit) along racial lines because of the continual racial mixture, the ever present exceptions, and the resulting intermediate (i.e., mixed) group" (1966:150). The point here is not that physical differences are irrelevant1 but that ascription of persons to either category cannot be predicted solely on the basis of such differences. Therefore, rather than analyzing the Makkovik case using the concept of race, itself fraught with difficulties, it is more fruitful to consider what importance (if any) Settlers and Inuit attach to existing physical differences (cf. Friedlander 1975: 76-79; Shibutani and Kwan 1968:45). Supportive of my rejection of the concept of race are the growing number of studies documenting cases where two (or more) contiguous ethnic units, the 'members' of which cannot be solely differentiated on the basis of race, utilize cultural differentiae to maintain the local social system (cf. e.g.. Berry 1969; Colby and van den Berghe 1969; Eidheim l97l; Pillsbury 1977). My rejection of the concept of class in analyzing the Makkovik situation represents more an operational procedure than an overall conclusion regarding the irrelevance of class to this or other socio-cultural situations. Indeed, if class is defined as a socio-economic group whose position in society is determined by the relationship of its 'members' to a particular mode of production, 1A different incidence of certain diseases among historic and contemporary Settlers and Inuit seems to suggest that certain objective physiological differences exist (see Chapters III and IV). As yet, however, such objective differences remain inadequately researched and are, in any event, not critical to a person's classification as Settler or Inuit. 13 some might argue that Settlers and/or Inuit are 'working class' Canadians. I am also aware that in the broader context of north coastal Labrador, a class system overlapping existing ethnic distinc- tions may be emerging. Such a system finds 'outsiders' occupying top positions, Settlers intermediate, and Inuit and Indians at lower points. While such a system may crystalize in Labrador, as appears to be occurring in other parts of northern Canada (cf. Honigmann and Honigmann 1965), one must also note that while those at the top of such hierarchies fbrmally derive their authority from beyond the local community (e.g., from government or other national organiza- tions), their local effectiveness, support, and indeed even occupa- tional tenure ultimately depend on the acceptance of their performance by those at the bottom. This is meant only to suggest that applica- tion of the class concept to communities such as Makkovik requires a more dynamic approach than may be necessary for the analysis of industrial contexts. It should also be acknowledged that Settlers and Inuit realize they occupy an economic and political position which has historically been made marginal to existing national and international powers. Furthermore, we shall see that Settlers enjoy a higher standard of living than Inuit. Given these considerations, one could then examine the Makkovik data using a concept which might be labeled "class faction," that is, by viewing Settlers and Inuit as factions within an economically marginal class. Again, my preference for the concept of ethnic categories over class faction stems largely from the dissertation's focus and objective. I also believe that 14 the Settler advantage in resource production and general standard of living can, in itself, be deceiving since both ethnic categories operate according to different systems of social organization and values. However, a number of scholars have openly weighed the analytical advantages of the concept of class as opposed to ethnicity and have favoured the former concept. Gans (1964) for example, in his study of Boston Italian immigrants, questions whether the principal difference between Italian "peer group society" and that of middle class Bostonians can be explained by class or ethnicity. Likewise, Robbins (1975) poses a similar question regarding social relations in a western Laborador mining town. Not- withstanding the fact that both Gans and Robbins confer analytical primacy to class rather than ethnicity, I still maintain that ethnicity, as defined below, is more appropriate to the Makkovik data than is class. My reasons are as follows: First, by applying class criteria to Settlers and/or Inuit, one not only assumes all the characteristics which purportedly underlie class position but, in so doing, begs most of the important questions concerning the actual and rather unique socio-economic conditions which make northern Labrador people both dependent on, yet isolated from, the national system. Second, unlike Gans and Robbins, my interest lies not in comparing Makkovik Settlers and/or Inuit with another socio- economic entity (e.g., Inuit of other communities, "working class" Newfoundlanders, or external administrators temporarily working in Makkovik), but in the way each maintains its distinctiveness in 15 relation to the other. In short, since my focus centres on the maintenance of the Settler-Inuit dichotomy within one community, the concept of class, with its comparative and economic referents, is considered less appropriate than is the ethnic category concept. Finally, my distinction between the terms cultural group, ethnic category, and ethnicity stems from my belief that these are specific conceptual tools, each having separate analytical purposes. Henceforth, when referring to Settlers and Inuit as ethnic categories, I am suggesting that their 'members' recognize a shared cultural heritage, real or putative, and an identity different from that of other ethnic statuses. Isajiw (1974:111) has recently written that ethnic concepts (e.g., ethnicity, ethnic group, etc.) are infrequently and inadequately defined in many studies on the tapic. In this dissertation, by ethnicity, I am referring to social relationships between persons of different ethnic statuses. I also maintain that the concept of cultural groups and ethnic categories describe dif- ferent kinds of social phenomena. The former concept describes any human group sharing a common 'blueprint' for living. Those sharing that blueprint need not be conscious of a collective identity in relation to and distinct from another such cultural group. For example, prior to contact with European explorers in the early 19th century, the isolated Thule (or "Polar") Eskimos of northwestern Greenland considered themselves the only people on earth (Hughes 1965:10). As used here then, the concept of the cultural group corresponds to traditional anthropological conceptions of the ‘cultural isolate.‘ Patterson has also recently distinguished 16 between cultural groups and ethnic groups by stating that, "a cul- tural group, or segments of it, may become an ethnic group but only when the conditions of ethnicity are met" (1975:310). In summary, as used here, the concept ethnicity refers to the form of interaction or relations between persons of different ethnic statuses, within poly-ethnic or plural societies (cf. Cohen 1974a, 1974b; Glazer and Moynihan 1975). According to this perspective, prior to the relocation of Inuit to Makkovik (see Chapter II), the Settlers of Makkovik or the Inuit of Hebron could be considered cultural groups. However, since their common residence in Makkovik, both peoples should be considered ethnic categories while relations between them termed "ethnicity." The Old Ethnicity While particular terms and emphases have changed, the study of ethnic groups and the relations between them, ethnicity, has a long history in the social sciences, especially sociology. Until recently, anthropologists have been more inclined to study ethnic identity, that is, the subjective perception of an affiliation with or 'belonging' to a particular ethnic group. Prior to discussing recent anthrOpological interest in ethnic studies, I briefly refer to some of the dominant themes and problems of previous ethnic research, that which has been called the 'old ethnicity' (Bennett 1975). 17 Much of the old ethnicity was concerned with describing the adaptation of immigrants to North America. Very often, a dominant theme of inmigrant studies was assimilation, the "process whereby groups with different cultures come to have a common culture" (Berry 1965:247). Assimilation studies argued the inevitability, even the desirability that ethnic groups (e.g., the Italians, Polish, or Irish) melt into American culture. Another dominant theme was (and still is) pluralism. Furnivall's (1944) classic description of colonial Indonesia as a 'medley of peoples' who mix but do not combine, a plural society, the various groups of which are linked to a common economic or political structure was, of course, an early example of the plural- istic model. Unlike the assimilation model, which began to encounter criticism in the 19505, pluralism (or various approaches to pluralism), as a model of ethnicity, has survived (cf. e.g., Colby and van den Berghe 1969; R. Cohen and J. Middleton 1970; Kuper and Smith 1969). As recent critics have pointed out (cf. Barth 1969a; Bennett 1975), a major conceptual difficulty of the 'old ethnicity' was its tendency to equate an ethnic group with a culture, a race, and a population. The consequence of this equation was not only to render the ethnic group concept of dubious analytical import but to ignore whatever sggjal relevance ethnic affiliation might (or might not) have. In my view, an important step toward development of a set of ethnic concepts analytically distinct from culture, pepulation, or 'race' emerged as a result of the dialogue between American cultural anthropologists and British social anthropologists since 18 the 19505. Such ethnic concepts, similar to those used here, are proposed by practitioners of the 'new ethnicity.’ The New Ethnicity In his Introduction to The New Ethnicity, Bennett (1975) states that the new anthropological approach to ethnicity has a double meaning. In his view, its meaning is, First, the "newness" implies something new in the world-- or at least something newly noticed by anthropologists: the proclivity of people to seize on traditional cultural symbols as a definition 6? their own identity--either to assert the Self over and above‘the impersonaT State, or to obtain the resources one needs to survive and to consume. The second meaning is, Bennett continues, Intradisciplinary: it refers to the shift from a culture- population-group frame of reference in anthropology to a cognitive and behavioral-strategy frame, which view ethnicity as a component of social participation. This, I wdfild assume, represents a substantial shift in basic theoretical outlook. There are two major sources for this shift; the first is the work of Fredrik Barth on ethnic boundaries and identity: the second is the general field of social transactionalism and strategy analysis (1975: 3-4, my emphasis). As Bennett notes, Barth's influence on the "new ethnicity" is con- siderable and since, with certain differences in emphasis, my under- standing of ethnicity owes much to Barth's work, his contribution needs to be summarized. To begin, Barth's ethnicity appears grounded in three anthropological sources: Nadel's (1969) work on role theory and social boundaries; Goffman (1959) and others on symbolic interactionism and role performance; and formalist economics, with its emphasis on choice. 19 Barth's seminal contribution is synthesized in his Introduc- tion (1969a) to his edited volume Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (1969). Barth begins with two assumptions. First, rather than confusing overt cultural features as being synonymous with the characteristics of an ethnic group, we should view such features as an implication or result of affiliation with that group. Second, ethnic groups should be considered forms of social organization, the critical features of which are the character- istics of self-ascription and ascription by others. According to Barth, our attention should focus on the extent and manner by which actors use ethnic identity to categorize themselves and others for purposes of social interaction. The implication of these assumptions is that ethnic concepts describe a particular kind of social rela- tions, those between groups whose members determine what cultural features are, in fact, diacritical to group identity. This more emic emphasis rejects what I've already described as the major conceptual difficulty of the old ethnicity, that is, the assumption that an ethnic group "= a race = a culture = a language = a society = a unit which rejects or discriminates against others" (Barth 1969a:ll). Thus, instead of letting such 'objective' characteristics inform us as to what an ethnic group is, Barth sug- gests that we concentrate on whatever characteristics the actors themselves consider important to affiliation with their ethnic category. In terms of the Makkovik material, Barth's approach implies the following: instead of considering Inuit language as yet another objective cultural feature associated with being Inuit, that 20 we examine the social contexts and implications of language usage. its social meaning (if any) to those using it, its use (if any) by bilingual Settlers, and so on. By viewing ethnic groups as forms of social organization, Barth considers ethnic identity a social status, Those having that status (that is, persons of a particular ethnic category), exhibit (in varying degrees and in particular social situations) the expected behavioral characteristics of it. In Barth's (1969azl4) words, "since belonging to an ethnic category implies being a certain kind of person, having that basic identity, it also implies a claim to be judged, and to judge oneself, by those standards that are relevant to that identity." I maintain that by considering ethnic identity a social status, Barth disentangles the concept of "identity" from the psychological and emotive trappings which has characterized many past (e.g,, Hughes 1958; Chance 1965) and some recent (e.g., DeVos 1975) ethnic studies. Viewed as a status, focus shifts to structural questions such as the rights and obligations of an ethnic identity; the ways in which ethnic identity constrains (or does not constrain) individuals within polyethnic societies; and the manner in which actors manage or express their ethnic status. Barth's emphasis leads him to suggest that the primary object of ethnic research should be to concentrate on the so-called boundaries of ethnic groups. He states that, The critical focus of investigation from this point of view becomes the ethnic boundar that defines the group, not the cultural stuff thatTTt—EEEToses. The boundaries to which we must give our attention are, of course, social boundaries, though they may have territorial counterparts. If a group 21 maintains its identity when members interact with others, this entails criteria for determining membership and ways of signalling membership and exclusion. Ethnic groups are not merely or necessarily based on the occupation of exclusive territories; and the different ways in which they are maintained, not only by a once-and-for-all recruitment, but by continual expression and validation, need to be analyzed (l969a:15). Barth also states that boundary maintenance or stable inter-ethnic relations presuppose a Set of prescriptions governing situations of contact, and allowing for articulation in some sectors or domains of activity, and a set of prescriptions on social situations preventing inter-ethnic interaction in other sectors, and thus insulating parts of the culture from confrontation and modification (l969a:16). While I have little disagreement with Barth's theoretical statements regarding ethnic groups and boundaries, as explained in the 1969 volume's Introduction, my criticism of "Barth's ethnicity" centres on two points. The first of these is what I consider an incongruency between his theoretical and ethnographic handling of ethnic boundary concept, while the second lies with his inadequate attention to the significant problem of how and why ethnic groups emerge. Let me explain. My criticism of Barth's ethnographic handling of ethnic boundaries is illustrated by his (l969b) paper and by that of one of his students (Haaland 1969). For example, Barth (169b) relates how Afghanistan Pathans who are unable to obtain a favourable evaluation from fellow Pathans, shed their Pathan identity in favour of one as Kohistani or Baluch. Barth appears to suggest that "individual boundary crossing" (i.e., in his sense, the acquisition of the values and economic adaptation of an alien group) and a permanent "change of 22 identity" are homologous (l969a:132). Haaland describes what is evidently a similar case. Here, sedentary Sudanese fur horticul- turalists can become Baggara by adopting the pastoral nomadism locally associated with the latter group. In both cases, individual boundary crossing is equated with a permanent change of identity and, though sometimes caused by economic or political determinants, is accomplished largely as a matter of choice. Perhaps more signifi- cantly, individuals who so change their ethnic identity would appear to do so easily and without the social or moral evaluation of their peers. In short, according to this version of boundary crossing, individuals do so with ease and without social consequence. My objection here is not whether such cases exist (cf. Levine and Campbell 1972:98 on this point), rather that they are most certainly rare and overemphasize that boundary crossing can take place without incurring social costs. There is extensive comparative evidence (cf. e.g., Berry 1969; Colby and van den Berghe 1969; Haugen 1969) supporting my contention that, contra Barth, boundary crossing (variously termed "assimilation," ”identity change," "passing," or "ethnic re-definition") rarely occurs without causing ripples in the social system. While there are a number of factors involved in boundary crossing (e.g., the fluidity or rigidity of the boundary itself, the location where passing is attempted, the degree of phsyical difference between ego and the group into which he/she attempts to assimilate, and so on), it is generally conceded that passing within one's local or natal community is difficult. Again, given that Barth's espoused emphasis is on boundaries and his 23 description of the ease with which they can be crossed is at odds with other students of the subject, I would agree with Gulliver (1971:308) who, in his review of Barth (1969), concludes that Barth's treatment of the boundary concept is "not altogether clear." My second criticism of Barth's ethnicity, as mentioned above, is what I maintain to be a lack of emphasis on processual matters, namely, how ethnic groups emerge and persist. When Barth does con- centrate on process (cf. e.g., Barth, 1964a), he is clearly describing long-term trends of "preditory expansion," cases where superior environmental conditions encourage the seasonal expansion of one ethnic group into territory formerly inhabited by another (cf. Barth 1964b). Assimilation is the eventual outcome of such "ethnic processes" though we gain little insight into how actors accomplish this. We are also left uninformed as to how cultural traits which are likely indicative of an alternate identity are acquired or com- municated. Part of Barth's apparent problem is, once again, with the boundary concept. In the 1964b paper, boundaries are synonymous with a group's territory while his 1969a paper describes boundaries as a set of behaviour appropriate to a group. Campbell and Levine (1972:81-113) maintain that anthropology's longstanding "problem of ethnic boundaries" can be attributed to cer- tain assumptions, prevalent since Malinowski's functionalist writings, that tribes and other socio-cultural units can be analyzed as named, bounded, and socially-unique entities. They maintain that these assumptions led a generation of fieldworkers to "seek named terri- torial units . . . [permitting the anthropologist to] . . . set limits 24 on the extent of his investigation into institutions and their func- tional properties" (1972:83). Such assumptions were, of course. challenged by Leach's (1954) classic account of Highland Burma com- munities. I believe that the specific character of a group's boundaries are largely determined by the specific ethnographic setting and by the kinds of structural criteria I propose below. My position then is that while we must be wary of potential ontological problems inherent in standard anthropological assumptions about boundaries, we should not necessarily assume that the boundaries of a particular group of people will be characterized by ambiguity and impermanence. On this last point, for example, Fernandez (1972) criticizes Barth's boundary concept for what he maintains is its rigidity and suggests that ethnic boundaries are inherently vague and ill-defined. This is debatable, but the fact remains that Fernandez is describing the Spanish of Montreal, an ethnographic setting posing obvious problems of valid comparison with Barth's Pathan data. I maintain that descriptions of particular ethnic groups and generalizations about the rigidity or fluidity of boundaries are more informed when certain structural criteria, common to all ethnic settings, are considered. What I mean by structural criteria fundamentally differs from the kind of typologies proposed by Shibutani and Kwan (1965:223); Ross (1975:54-60); or Handelmann (1977:187-200). These typologies are based on the extent of formal organization found in ethnic systems. Ross (1975), fer example, posits a continuum of four types of "border definition" (e.g., category, collectivity, intensive contact, and formal association), 25 each determined by the degree or level of border (read boundary) definition. I maintain that such typologies are less useful for present purposes than the structural criteria described below because the latter focus on the conditions specific to ethnicity, or, put differently, to the characteristics of contact between two or more ethnic groupings. The structural criteria I'm referring to--scale, status, situation and institutional variables--help illuminate the materials presented in chapters to follow. By scale, I am referring to the significance of demographic facts, such as the number of persons of one ethnic status versus that of another. In Makkovik, for example, we'll see that there are roughly three times as many Settlers as Inuit. Consideration of scale prompts questions such as what effect such demographic ratios have on inter-ethnic relations, that is, on ethnicity. Comparisons of other bi-ethnic Labrador communities (e.g., Hopedale and Nain--see Map I), where the proportion of Inuit to Settlers differs from Makkovik, raise new questions about and shed light on the Makkovik case. The criteria I've termed scale also considers that in a community of Makkovik's size (approximately 300), little anonymity is possible and that this, in itself, pro- foundly affects the character of inter and intra-group relations (cf. e.g., Berreman 1978). In short, the criteria of scale helps understand boundary maintenance in Makkovik by focusing on the demographic dimension. What I'll call status refers to age, language usage, social network, and ethnic identity--admittedly a broad criteria. We shall 26 see that language status is clearly related to ethnic status, and, excepting certain ethnically-mixed persons, that all monolingual persons are either Settlers or Inuit. The criteria labeled situation pertains to the places and events where inter-ethnic encounters customarily occur. There are many subtle nuances to such situations. For example, while I am primarily concerned with ethnic situations within Makkovik, an "Eskimo looking" Settler temporarily visiting St. John's (the provincial capital--where little is known about Labrador's complex ethnic system), could temporarily "pass" as "an Eskimo" by purpose- fully exaggerating the fact that he resides in Labrador, is knowledgeable about Labrador wildlife, and so on. On the other hand, he might be ascribed (perhaps without his knowledge) "an Eskimo" by St. John's people. I mention this only to establish that possibilities for ambiguity of ethnic status exist beyond Makkovik's community borders. However, the rules governing ethnic situations in Makkovik are more rigid, a fact largely attributable to the criteria of scale discussed above. Even in Makkovik though, the quality of inter-ethnic encounters can vary according to the various places and pe0p1e present in situations such as the church, private homes, the road, and so on. My final criterhnu.labe1ed institutional variables, considers the effect which institutions such as the Moravian Mission or new native organizations have on ethnic categories and the maintenance of their boundaries in Makkovik. Comparative research (cf. Coughlin 1960; Hicks and Kertzer 1972; Salamone 1974) suggests that government 27 policies and other institutions sometimes determine the social adaptation of ethnic groups. I believe that such institutional forces also help understand the character of ethnicity in Makkovik. A primary result of such changing circumstances is to make Settlers and Inuit increasingly less responsible for the economic and political conditions which affect them, and, as a result, under little pressure to openly compete or conflict with one another. Hence, the increased role of external institutions in Makkovik life permits the kind of "relations of separateness" and exchange of ethnic symbols which this study describes. It is incumbent on me, before outlining the process by which Makkovik's ethnic boundaries are continuously re-defined, to explain my own use of the boundary concept. Three points strike me as important, the first of which I have already discussed. While I agree with Barth's assertion that "boundaries persist despite the flow of personnel across them" (l969a:9), I question that such flow is simply as a matter of individual choice or that it is accomplished without social costs. Passing certainly has occurred in the Labrador case (cf. Ben-Dor, 1966:151-156), however, actors who "become" Inuit or Settler face potential ridicule and gossip. Their children's identity will normally not, however, be subject to such social pressures. Therefore, I maintain as Barth writes (1969bzl32) but does not seem to adequately pursue (for example, by providing individual biographies), that what I have called ethnicity is a pggljg_ phenomenon. This being the case, individuals who are able to per- manently cross ethnic boundaries (or, change their ethnic identity) 28 do so in the face of the scrutiny and judgment of fellow participants in the ethnic system. My second point follows from the first. That is that boundaries define the distinctiveness of an ethnic category by expressing behaviour which its members believe to be appropriate. Boundaries organize social life, they place maximal limits on a per- son's behaviour and convey expected norms and values exclusive to ethnic affiliation. To borrow a phrase recently used by Bailey (1971), behaviour which expresses a people's boundaries publicly conveys its definition of a "moral conmunity." I maintain that boundary maintaining behaviour is a social consequence of ethnic affiliation because the norms and values to which members subscribe continually inform other members not only what they cannot do, but also what they should do. The final point concerns the process by which ethnic boundaries are conveyed. This involves the communication of those cultural traits which are considered appropriate for group members. In some instances, certain culture traits can be selected as symbols of ethnic affiliation. As I explain below, the ggtggl.origin of the culture traits selected as symbols is not necessarily important. What is important is their use by actors to express or communicate ethnic affiliation. I consider this process whereby an ethnic category "constructs its social reality" by ascribing a symbolic meaning to particular cultural traits to be continuous, that is, if its boundaries are to persist. I also consider this process to be 29 the most basic behavioural element in what I've referred to as boundary maintenance. Boundary Maintenance as a Symbolic Process In his statement on the 'new ethnicity' quoted above, John Bennett noted that ethnic groups seize on "traditional cultural symbols as a definition of their own identity" (1975z3). It would appear that this phenomenon, though not new, has received increased attention, particularly regarding new or emerging ethnic grups. Such groups are particularly obvious in Africa, where the effects of decolonialization and urbanization has forced former tribesmen to forge new associations. Mitchell's classic study, The Kalela Dance (1956), illustrates this pehnomenon, a case where a new kind of "tribalism" has emerged in industrial Rhodesian townships. This new form of tribalism acts to unite people formerly affiliated with disparate tribes, presenting a common front against the white colonial administration. In addition, given the anonymity and potential confusion of the urban context, the members of urban ethnic groups utilize cues and symbols to communicate affiliation. Mitchell describes the way such symbols communicate ethnic distinc- tiveness and thus clarify the otherwise confusing task of dealing with strangers. He writes, It is in a situation such as this, where neighbours are constantly changing and where people from many different tribes are thrown together, that the distinctiveness of other people becomes apparent. This difference is shown in many ways. The most important way, no doubt, is language. But dress, eating habits, music, dances, all provide indicators or badges of ethnic membership (1956:22). 30 Following Mitchell's study, others (cf. e.g., Cohen, 1969) have observed a similar phenomenon. Emphasizing the political implications of this process, Cohen (1974a:9l) writes that There is now a rapidly accumulating literature demonstrating how under certain circumstances some interest groups exploit parts of their traditional culture in order to articulate informal organizational functions that are used in the struggle of these groups for power within the framework of formal organizations. This process of employing aspects of traditional culture for new, ethnic purposes is, in my view, conscious, recurrent, and dialectical. Conscious insofar as the ascription of meaning to particular culture traits is mediated by the members of each ethnic category. It is recurrent because, as Barth (l969a) has written, the categorical distinctions which maintain ethnic boundaries need be continually expressed and validated. Finally, this process is dialectical inso- far as such distinctions are always made in relation to another ethnic entity. On this last point, Bessac has written that, "Symbols of ethnic awareness sometimes derive from calling attention to differences between one's culture and that of neighbours" (1968: 60). I would substitute the phrase 'always' or 'nearly always' for Bessac's 'sometimes.' Now what of these culture traits which I've suggested are given new symbolic importance? I have already said that the ggtggl origin of specific traits utilized by a people need not be part of its cultural heritage. We shall see that Makkovik Inuit embrace a number of elements of the Moravian legacy, considering them appropriately "Inuit," Kleivan relates a similar example regarding 31 Greenlanders (the Inuit of Greenland). He relates that, In Greenland, Scottish whalers centuries ago taught the Greenlanders to dance various square dances. These dances are still being performed, particularly in the small out-of—the way places, bein regarded as "truly old Greenlandic dances" (1970:228T. Occasionally, ethnic groups which have been almost totally assimilated into the dominant society face serious difficulties obtaining symbols with which to distinguish themselves. Hicks and Kertzer (1972), for example, describe how New England Monhegan Indians, lacking 'Indian' symbols believed credible by white society, adopt white stereotypes of Indian identity (e.g., reference to liquor as 'firewater' or pray- ing to the 'Great Spirit') to support their legitimacy as Indians. A final point regarding the content from which symbolic meaning is produced. I have earlier noted Barth's claim that we should concentrate on boundaries rather than the "cultural stuff" which they enclose. It would appear more appropriate to me to assume that such cultural stuff is all that ethnic groups have to express their boundaries. Smith has recently made a similar point in his study of Indians, Metis, and Inuit in Canada's Mackenzie River Delta. Smith concludes that, While we agree with Barth (1969:15) that the focus of investigation in such cases as the Mackenzie Delta is more a matter of studying the structural interfaces between social segments and the structures which bridge them, than the 'cultural stuff' which they enclose, we have made a strong attempt to show the role of plural segmental cultural features in establishing and maintaining these interfaces (1975:132). With Smith then, I agree that an ethnic unit's perceived cultural elements provides the main resource from which ethnic symbols may potentially be drawn. 32 The chapter to follow describes the historic formation of the categories Settler and Inuit, as well as other historical informa- tion essential to understanding contemporary Makkovik. CHAPTER II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The process by which Settlers and Inuit use cultural elements to maintain the social division between them is not unique to con- temporary Makkovik. Helge Kleivan's study, The Eskimos of Northeast Labrador (1966), documents the historic emergence of the Settler- Inuit dichotomy and attendant convictions of ethnic solidarity held by both categories of people, a phenomenon which began to occur about 1860. This chapter has two primary objectives. The first provides essential historical background material on Labrador in general and Makkovik in particular. For example, one section describes the foundation of the Moravian Mission; another describes changes imposed on Inuit culture by the mission throughout the 19th century. Significantly, the mission's impact was to reduce existing cultural differences between the indigenous Inuit and the European Settlers whose permanent intrusions onto the north coast began during the 19th century and is the topic of a subsequent section. The chapter's second objective is to explain the historic genesis of the Settler-Inuit distinction as an outcome of 19th century culture contact. The historical data on Inuit-European culture contact as well as the prominent role of the Moravian Mission in encouraging the Settler-Inuit distinction inform us as 33 34 to the contemporary inter-group situation in Makkovik. For example, it is clear that early European Settlers and Inuit were dependent on one another during the 19th century and that this mutual inter- dependence explains the close, even symbiotic, inter-ethnic relations of that period, a situation quite unlike that of today. The historical material presented in this chapter also illuminates my meaning of ethnic concepts, as explained in the pre- vious chapter. Following the historical genesis of the Settler-Inuit distinction, the primarily Settler community of Makkovik and the Inuit community of Hebron developed independent of and enjoyed minimal contact with each other. Consequently, until the late 19505, when Inuit were relocated to Makkovik, Hebron Inuit and Makkovik Settlers had relatively little concern with their identity in rela- tion to that of the other category. By making them neighbours in Makkovik, relocation has forced Settlers and Inuit to rethink their ethnic identity and has given new meaning to certain formerly 'unproblematic aspects of their cultural past. The Establishment of the Moravian Mission The region referred to as 'Northern Labrador' is that portion of the Quebec-Ungava peninsula bordered on the east by the Labrador Sea; on the west by the Quebec-Labrador boundary; on the north by Cape Chidley; and on the south by Cape Harrison (see Map 1). Northern Labrador's status as a specific region within the Province of Newfoundland-Labrador can be traced to the establishment of the Moravian Mission in the late 18th century. 35 Until very recently, the Moravian Mission has been the, major intrusive agency of culture change in northern Labrador. Therefore, events leading up to its establishment and its subsequent effects on the Inuit-Settler dichotomy requires some comnent. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, contact between the ancestors of the contemporary Inuit (the so-called 'Thule Eskimos') and Europeans was characterized by considerable hostility and treachery. Europeans, first fishermen and whalers, and later traders, ventured to the Quebec North Shore and Strait of Belle Isle region where they encountered small groups of Inuit. The Inuit, most of whom lived throughout much of the year in more northerly districts, were lured south each summer by curiousity and by a desire to obtain European goods. The hostile character of these con- tacts was, as Jenness (1966:7) writes, inevitable since "neither side understood or trusted the other." The Europeans who recorded these hostile contacts, typically viewed the Inuit as instigators, result- ing in a body of knowledge from the period in which Inuit are described as simple but also cunning 'savages.' These relations acted to restrict the European fishery and required that the fleets be heavily armed (Gosling 1910:132-133). Under these circumstances, the British, upon gaining control of Labrador from the French in 1763, immediately initiated efforts to pacify the area. Here then, is where the Moravians enter the story. The Moravian Church (technically, the Unitas Fratrum--the Unity of the Brethren) is, along with the Waldensians, the only Protestant sect to claim Pre-Reformation origins. Founded in 1457, the Church 36 enjoyed a large following in Bohemia and Moravia until its members were either forced underground or into exile following the defeat of Bohemian Protestants in 1620 (Gollin l967:4). In the early 18th century, the Moravians were offered and accepted political asylum on the estate of an Austrian nobleman, Count Zinzendorf in Saxony. There, in 1722, they founded the settlement of Herrnhut and, in the decades to follow, the Church underwent a process of resuscitation. Under Zinzendorf's inspriation, during the 17305, an international missionary program began. Moravian missionaries ventured to the West Indies (1732), to West Greenland (1733), and to Surinam (1735). The West Greenland mission enjoyed some success and, more importantly, provided a handful of missionaries with a knowledge of Inuttitut (Inuit language) and a desire to establish a mission in Labrador. The first attempt to do so, in 1752, ended in failure when seven of the mission party were killed by Inuit. Nonetheless, the British remained firm in their intention to stabilize the Labrador situation and, in the 17605, an agreement between the Moravians and the British Government was reached. The Moravians were assured full British civil and military protection and were (reluctantly) granted 100,000 acre land tracts at each mission station, creating in effect, reserves which would theoretically insulate Inuit from further European contacts. The British were optimistic that, as political 'go-betweens' (Hiller 1971a), the missionaries would pacify the Inuit, enabling the stable development of the fishery and demonstrating British sovereignty in Labrador. 37 Inuit of the Contact Period and Tl9th Century Culture Change Recent archaeological, historical, and ethnohistorical studies have greatly increased our understanding of the Labrador Inuit at the time of Moravian contact (cf. e.g., Schledermann 1971; Hiller 1967, 1971b; Taylor 1974). In 1772-1773, the Inuit population numbered approximately 1,460 and was dispersed among a number of "place-groups" between Arvertok (later named "Hopedale" by the Moravians) and Cape Chidley (Taylor 1974:15). Place-group or settle- ment size varied seasonally, ranging from an average of about 27 people in spring camps to about 158 people in early summer camps (Taylor 1974:15-19). Each place-group, customarily composed of individuals linked by ties of kinship or marriage, identified them- selves as the "people of" that place or region and, in describing themselves, affixed the suffix :mgit_(literally meaning "the people of") to the place name. Thus, given the hunting, fishing, and gathering economy practiced by the Inuit and the corresponding necessity that local groups predictably utilize particular resources seasonally, it is probable that individual kin groups became identi- fied with particular districts of the coast. On a broader, regional level, Labrador Inuit of the historic period apparently identified themselves as Suhinimiut, meaning people of or who dwell in the sun (Turner 1894:176-177). While identification with a particular community awaited the development of permanent Mission Stations by the Moravians, the legacy of the traditional place-group identity system survived into the modern period. We shall see, for 38 example, that Makkovik's Inuit population relocated from Hebron is primarily composed of three kin groups, each of which historically inhabited separate districts of the coast. Our knowledge of the belief system of the early contact Labrador Inuit is greatly restricted because early missionaries viewed the Inuit religious system as "heathen superstition" rather than a legitimate belief system. Nevertheless, existing accounts (cf. Cranz 1820; Turner 1894; Hawkes 1970; and Hiller 1967) relate that Inuit interacted with a potentially generous and benignant spirit world, providing appropriate respect and generosity was addressed to it. It was into this milieu that the missionaries ventured, confident in the righteousness of their 'calling' and assured that they were, by intent and training, the appropriate European agents to pacify the Inuit. The first mission station was established in 1771 at Nunaingoakh (renamed 'Nain' by the missionaries), a sizable Inuit summer camp. After a difficult first winter (cf. Peacock 1960), during which the Brethren observed that most Inuit dispersed to outlying hunting places, the Moravians realized that Nain's loca- tion made it a difficult place in wich to support large winter population concentrations. Thus, as early as the first winter, began a problem which has plagued the mission well into the 20th century, namely, how to create settled communities (Hiller 1971b: 86-88) when the Inuit economy required seasonal migrations in response to available resources. The missionaries resolved that any subsequent stations would be situated at locations with access 39 to resources throughout the year. The missionaries also encouraged Inuit to stockpile fish and meat so they would be able to remain at the mission during winter. The second and third stations then, at Okak (1776) and Arvertok (l782--renamed Hopedale), were both loca- tions which supported relatively large populations in the pre-contact period (Taylor 1974:11-12). Steadfast in their goal of sedentary communities yet more realistic as to its attainment, the Brethren initiated a pattern of periodically visiting converts at their out- lying hunting and fishing camps during summer and encouraging them to remain in the mission conmunities during winter. This pattern, which emphasized the period between Christmas and Easter, survived well into the 20th century. Unlike many Christian missions, the Moravians were reluctant to baptize Inuit who simply showed interest in the mission, Jenness writes that the missionaries "judged faith by its works, not by the eloquence of its words, and they sternly refused to sprinkle the water of baptism on every individual who had learned to recite the Lord's prayer" (1965:14). Thus, five years passed before the first Inuk was converted (1776) but, between 1799 and 1804, a religious 'awakening' occurred, beginning at Hopedale (Cranz 1820:312) and subsequently spreading to Nain and Okak. The reasons for this sudden increase in conversions appear to have been a depression in the Inuit economy; Inuit converts using the mission as a refuge from the social conflicts inherent in the aboriginal culture; the realization that the Moravians were to remain in Labrador; and the effects of the 40 mission's teachings. Jenness has summarized the increase in Inuit converts between 1771 and 1848 as follows: In 1801, thirty years after Jens Haven and his two companions first went ashore, 26 missionaries were "labouring in the vineyards" of Nain, Okak, and Hapedale; but of the 162 Eskimos who had settled beside them they had converted only 85. Then at last they won their struggle, and the gospel seed took finm root. religious movement gripped the aborigines. Between 1799 and 1804 an intense By 1810 the population of the three missions had grown from 162 to 457 through an influx of ex-heathen natives from the surrounding districts, and by 1848 the Christian Eskimos between Cape Harrison and Cape Chidley numbered 1,185 out of a total population less than 1,500 (1965:14). This increase in the number of "Moravian Inuit" resulted in the establishment of additional stations. A complete list of Moravian Mission stations in Labrador, past and present is listed in Table 1. TABLE l.--Moravian Mission Stations in Labrador (see Map l). Mission Station Period of Occupation Nain Okak Hopedale Hebron Zoar Ramah Makkovik Killinek (Cape Chidley) Happy Valley North West River 1771 1776 1782 1830 1865 1871 1896 1904 1957 1960 - Present - 1919 - Present - 1959 - 1890 - 1907 - Present - 1924 - Present Present 41 As the mission's position in northern Labrador was gradually strengthened, a number of its policies had the effect of increasing its control over the lives of Inuit. One such policy was the mission's trading operation, established during the early years of the mission and continuing until 1926. In many ways the whole issue of whether or not the mission shgglg_conduct trade remained disputed during the years of its operation. 0n the one hand, many missionaries believed that economic trade had no place in a religious mission while, on the other hand, the Moravians were afraid that Inuit, if denied access to trade goods, would obtain such goods either from the Hudson Bay Company (HBC), Newfoundland fishermen, or private Settler traders (see below), and thereby amass multiple debts. The mission's trade monOpoly, which lasted some 150 years, was therefore in many ways a compromise. While the trade did occasionally produce profit (particularly in the early 19th century), its aim was to pro- vide Inuit with local access to European goods (e.g., gun powder, shot, molasses, biscuits, and so on) and thereby undermine the necessity of them trading elsewhere. Virtually all trade was con- ducted through the 'grubstake' technique--every Inuk had an account (a passbook) at the mission store and was extended credit (in the form of goods) which was then repaid during various times of the year in the form of seal skins, fox skins, cod liver oil, or handi- crafts. The mission's control of Inuit trade increased its ability to transform various aspects of the aboriginal culture. Thus, during the years following 1771, the missionaries were able to 42 encourage changes in Inuit house structures and residence patterns, marriage practices, exploitative patterns, political organization, and belief systems. Changes in these important and diverse aspects of Inuit culture, which are discussed in the next couple of pages. had the effect of leveling or reducing differences between Inuit culture and that of Europeans who later settled permanently on the coast, people whose children became the Settlers discussed later in this chapter, and, indeed, throughout the thesis. In order to obtain credit at the Mission's stores, Inuit were required to harvest resources having European market value (e.g., cod fish, furs, seal oil, and so on). This entailed basic changes in the Inuit annual economic cycle since some of these marketable resources (e.g., cod fish and fox furs), which had had minimal importance for the aboriginal adaptation, were available at the same season as were resources critical to the aboriginal economy. The new value of these marketable resources thus meant that Inuit had to either forego or reduce acquisition of formerly important renewable resources. The economic patterns which developed around exploitation of these hitherto underused resources sometimes conflicted with the sexual division of labour and values of the aboriginal system. Cod fishing, for example, which was to become the cornerstone of Moravian Inuit economy had traditionally been of minor significance and was, in any event, an economic activity per- formed by old people, women, and children. In the pre-mission economy, the period during which cod fish are plentiful (August- September), Inuit men were involved in the important caribou hunt, 43 primarily to acquire skins necessary for winter clothing. Thus, not only was cod fish (and cod fishing) of minor importance in the pre- mission economy but the procurement of the resource was considered 'women's work' by Inuit hunters (Taylor 1974). Nonetheless, increas- ing Inuit dependence on trade goods led to an "explosive expansion" of the Inuit cod fishery during the 18605 and 18705 (Kleivan 1966: 56). Another important economic change was the mission's intro- duction of nets for use in an organized harp seal fishery (see Appendix I: Labrador Natural Environment, for harp seal). With the exception of Schledermann (1971:56-57), who presents tentative archaeological evidence suggesting that seal nets were used prior to European contact, most students of northern Labrador believe that nets were introduced by the Moravians (cf. e.g., Gosling 1910:284- 285; Kelivan 1966:49). In any event, by the 18205, the missionaries had mobilized Inuit sealing crews for a concerted harp seal fishery, employing nets owned by the mission (Kleivan 1966:62). This fishery, which lasted until the late 19205, produced marketable seal oil and skins for export while, for their labour, Inuit crewmen received the meat of every third seal they captured (Kleivan 1966:62). The point I should like to emphasize here is that the mission seal fishery had few lasting advantages for Inuit producers since inadequate possibilities existed for them to control the means to production. Thus, in addition to owning the nets, the mission also owned the sealing berth§_(the most favourable locations where seal nets were set), and of course, marketed the seal products. Thus, in the short 44 term, Inuit received meat as remuneration but, in the long run, the mission seal fishery did little to create independent Inuit seal fishermen. I shall return to this point in Chapter III, specifically in rejecting Ben-Dor's (1966:53-54) conclusion that the failure of Makkovik Inuit to use seal nets exemplifies their traditional approach to economic behaviour. Excepting the mission's sealing system, a series of implicit rules governed Inuit ownership and allocation of resources during the traditional period in areas north of Nain (LIA 1977:325-330). These rules respected the equivalent right of all Inuit to all hunting and fishing locations and resources. The extremely low population density of the far northern coast as well as a fluctuating but typically rich resource base did not necessitate more formalized, explicit regula- tions, such as tended to occur at Hopedale and Nain (see Map I). Thus, northern Inuit relocated to Makkovik in the late 19505 faced not only a new and strange environment but one where established Settler ownership procedures differed dramatically from their tradi- tional system. By the late 19th and early 20th century, the traditional annual economic cycle of the Labrador Inuit can be summarized as follows (based on Jenness 1965:27): Christmas-Easter trapping (usually from mission stations), hunting for seals and birds April caribou hunting May-early July harpooning and/or shooting seals July arctic char fishing 45 August-September cod fishing and hunting sea birds October-Christmas netting harp seals for the mission The details of this "Moravian Inuit" annual economic cycle remain helpful in understanding the contemporary subsistance economy of the relocated Hebron Inuit. By the mid-19th century, the community structure of the four mission stations had obtained some stability. During winter, each station contained approximately 200-300 pe0p1e but each spring, small, kinship-based groups dispersed to their customary hunting and fishing places. While the missionaries attempted to visit these camps periodically, their influence within the mission stations was greater and is, in any event, better documented. An important feature of the political organization of the aboriginal society were men's meetings, convened when the necessity arose to discuss and resolve disputes (cf. Kleivan 1966:72-73). These informal gatherings survive into the modern period (cf. Ben-Dor 1966:87) but undoubtedly were far more important in maintaining social control prior to the arrival of the Moravians. In the late 17705, the missionaries introduced a Moravian institution, the choir system, to Labrador. Hiller (1971b:849) describes the functions of the Labrador choir system as follows. The choirs were instruments of social control as well as of socialization. In the meetings, the missionaries not only followed the spiritual progress of the converts, but also learned about all happenings in the settlements. They (the missionaries) complained that the Eskimos were 'by nature very reserved and cautious in saying anything bad of each other' and found that they had to rely for information on a 'speaking,’ that is, an interview between an individual 46 Eskimo and a missionary, in which the former was expected to describe the state of his faith and anything that was on his conscience--in effect, an informal confession. From such information the missionaries could discipline the confessionalist and any deviants he mentioned. In other parts of the world, the choir system subdivided Moravian communities according to sex, age, and marital status. Such sub- divisions constituted separate living and working segments of the whole settlement. For example, individuals affiliated with a choir (e.g., the single Brethren's choir or the widow's choir) lived and worked together; choirs functioned as surrogate families (Gollin 1967:67-89). In Labrador, however, the choir system never obtained the social and economic significance of the standard Moravian model. Nonetheless, each Inuit community had six choirs, each of which occasionally met with the missionary. In addition to the choir system, since 1901, each mission station has been governed by a so-called 'watch committee' or board (called by Inuit the Angajokaukattiget) composed of appointed 'chapel servants' (Kivgat), elected 'elders' (angajokaukatigik), and the missionary. Chapel servants are respected men (and later, women) whose lifetime appointments were made by the missionary and whose responsibilities centered on church maintenance. Elders (men over 25 years of age) are elected by the congregation with a ratio of one elder for every 100 members of a congregation. Elders are expected to be sober and enlightened individuals who, in concert with the missionary, adjudicate a broad range of secular disputes such as, for example, domestic squabbles, disagreements over the sharing of game, or incidents of physical aggression. Finally, 47 Inuit elders, as middlemen between the missionary and the congrega- tion occupy a precarious position which, notwithstanding, has become the aspired leadership status among Inuit. Having presented some of the effects which the Moravian Mission has had on the historic (and, as will be evident later, contemporary) Labrador Inuit, I conclude this section by making more explicit certain Moravian interpretations of the Inuit economic behaviour. Missionaries selected for the Labrador mission were typically of German or British working class background and were usually skilled at such trades as carpentry, boat building, or metal work (Whiteley 1964; Miller 1967). Moravian theology (to the extent there was one) was less concerned with doctrine than with conduct; communal life was primary; Christ was the essential figure and the Bible the sole source of dogma (Gollin 1967). The early Moravians (especially Count Zinzendorf) emphasized a religious feeling in Community and, consequently, the sect stressed an active and personal trust in Christ. The extent to which the Moravians were "rational" (in the Weberian sense--see Chapter III) may be debated (cf. Weber 1958: 135-137; Gollin 1967) but, in any event, the Labrador missionaries saw little in Inuit culture which corresponded with prevalent European notions of 'rationality.‘ Thus, since first arriving in Labrador, the Moravians have consistently viewed Inuit economic behaviour as haphazard and wasteful. Even those missionaries who understood the importance of sharing were apparently unwilling to accept the Inuit dictum that 'if one starved, 48 all starved' (Kleivan 1966:66). The missionaries appear to have arrived at their interpretation that Inuit economic behaviour was not 'rational' from four sources of information. First, the cultural background of the missionaries was firmly embedded in European notions of saving, budgeting, and individual gain. Secondly, the Brethren were astonished that in an environment as rich as Labrador periodically appeared to be, starvation and economic hardship could occur. Third, the missionaries appear to have underestimated the impact which mission policy (e.g., trade, population concentration at the stations, changes in social structure, and so on) had had on what had been a delicate Inuit adjustment to the natural environment. Finally, since the Labrador Mission could only afford to remain in Labrador if Inuit were not dependent upon the mission for handouts of food during winter, the Inuit hgg_to stockpile provisions for winter. This last point presented immense difficulties to a society where a person's prestige was not so much measured by what he had as by how readily available it was to others less fortunate. The follow- ing illustrations document missionary interpretations of Inuit economic behaviour. For example, after comparing the relative abundance of fish and game in Labrador with that of Greenland, Cranz laments that, “These supplies are so precarious, and so badly husbanded by this unthrifty race, that they are not unfrequently reduced to the greatest straits in winter" (1820:309). Again on the theme of waste, though from a slightly different perspective, the Hebron missionary records in 1859 that, 49 When circumstances are favourable for hunting, the Esquimaux, like some other nations who follow the chase, destroy every- thing they meet with, whether they can make use of it or not-- the man who kills the most being proportionally highly esteemed (quoted from Kleivan 1966:53). The failure of the Inuit to stockpile or preserve food for winter is, as noted, perhaps the most consistently mentioned observation of missionaries regarding Inuit economic behaviour. For example, the Ramah missionary writes in 1897 that: It is a failing, common, we are told, to nearly all the Ramah people-~and those at the other stations too, no doubt--that they are improvident and careless of the future. When they are favoured with success in their hunting and fishing expeditions, they quickly devour all they have got, and cannot easily be persuaded to lay in a supply for other and, maybe, far less fortunate times (P.A. 1897:373, emphasis mine). Clearly, throughout the 19th century, a cumulative record of Inuit economic behaviour was amassed and, as the 1897 observation indicates, communicated to each new generation of missionaries. The Settlers Even while the changes in Inuit culture were occurring under Moravian tutelage during the l96h century, a number of intrusive forces were showing signs of penetrating Moravian Labrador. Each summer, for example, increasing numbers of Newfoundland fishing schooners pushed farther north, reaching Hopedale by 1831 and the coast north of Nain by 1861. Furthermore, between the 18305 and 18605, the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) opened trading posts between Rigolet and Nachvak Fjord (see Map I). The Moravians very clearly resented such intrusions, fearing their disruptive effect on Inuit economic and moral life. Generally, the HBC located its posts some 50 distance from the mission stations; however, this did not prevent contact (and trade) with the seasonally nomadic Inuit. Newfoundland fishermen appear to have been less concerned about 'intruding' Moravian 'territory' since they considered Labrador a part of the colony of Newfoundland and therefore an excellent, even if distant, fishing area. In general, the consequences of Inuit contact with fishermen and traders were not beneficial to Inuit (cf. Kleivan 1966: 117-126). HBC personnel, generally recruited in England, Scotland, Wales or Norway, were required to serve a minimum of five years with the Company. The Company's personnel were almost exclusively single men some of whom, after serving with the Company, decided to remain in Labrador, marry Inuit (and, to a far lesser extent, Indian) women, and subsist as independent traders, trappers, and fishermen. Thus, many of northern Labrador's first generation Settlers originally came to work either with the HBC or another, independent trading company. Historically, the social process by which the category Settlers emerged from these European-Inuit unions occurred in two phases. In what I shall call the first generation, beginning about 1830, European (and, to a lesser extent, Newfoundlanders and 'Canadian') males took up residence and/or married Inuit women and established independent homesteads along Labrador's protected 'inner coast.‘ These men frequently purchased trade goods from Newfoundland fishermen each summer, subsequently exchanging these goods with Inuit or Indians. Relationships between the Europeans and natives were generally positive since the European men were 51 dependent upon local Inuit for wives and skills essential for life in Labrador. Likewise, much to the regret of the mission, Inuit traded with these new strangers because they occasionally stocked 'luxury' goods not available at mission stores. Despite the dependence of first generation Settler men on the Inuit for wives and skills, their letters 'home' reveal a strong European consciousness and a reluctance to discuss their unions with Inuit women (Kleivan 1966:100). It would also appear that to Inuit, these Europeans were kablunak (white men) and were generally indis- tinguishable from other, more transient, whites. Few first genera- tion Settlers learned the Inuit language and virtually all continued to describe themselves as 'Norwegians,’ 'Scotsmen,‘ or 'Englishmen.‘ It is with the second generation, that is the offspring of these European male-Inuit female unions, that the category 'Settler' or kablunangojok (literally meaning 'half-white' or 'almost like white men') emerged. These individuals, variously called 'white Settlers,‘ 'half-caste,' 'half-breeds,’ or 'Settlers' in mission accounts, came to conceive of themselves as neither European nor Inuit and were so regarded by the mission and the Inuit. This self- conception was buttressed by several social facts: they were usually bilingual, they were physically 'mixed,‘ and were, of necessity, neither fully European nor Inuit in life style. Now it is of con- siderable importance that upon reaching marraigeable age, these 'Settlers' generally chose other Settlers, rather than Inuit, as spouses. In addition, excepting the more northerly districts of the coast (e.g., from Nain north), second generation Settlers did not 52 commonly maintain the intense relationships with Inuit which their fathers had. Instead, socio-economic relations were with other Settlers and Newfoundland fishermen. Thus, it is with the second generation that ethnic endogamy and a sense of 'consciousness of kind' develops. That such an identity had emerged by 1874 is evident at the official opening of Zoar, the first Moravian station with a considerable Settler membership: The English Settlers residing here were not a little grati- fied that, in the providence of God, the first infant baptized in the new church was a child of people of their own class . . . . They recognized in this fact, and did not hesitate to state it, that this station had been commenced specially on their behalf, in order that it might be a means of gathering them together, who before that time had been as sheep having no Shepherd (P.A. 1874, quoted from Kleivan 1966:103). This passage also indicates that the mission's previous hesitation to accept Settler (or their fathers) had waned, and this important decision deserves brief explanation. The mission's initial rejection of first generation Settlers was linked to several factors. First of all, given the mission's concern with insulating Inuit from all_outside contact, it viewed first generation Settlers as indistinguishable from other whites and as therefore threatening. Secondly, the mission was aware that some first generation Settlers were petty traders and mostly likely viewed them as competition. In actual fact, however, the economy of first generation Settlers may be described as generalized, trade being one aspect of it. Other strategies of this generalized adaptation included small scale gardening, husbandry (goats, chickens, and occasionally, cows), trapping, fishing, and hunting. 53 I would emphasize then that many first generation Settlers sought to replicate a basically European life style in Labrador and that their transition to a native Labrador life-style (e.g., based on Indian and Inuit culture traits) occurred as they slowly recognized the diffi- culties of so doing. Finally, first generation Settlers should not be seen as competing with Inuit for commonly valued scarce resources since most of them resided between Hopedale and Cape Harrison, an area south of the main concentration of the Inuit population. Also, Settlers were few in numbers and relied on resources only marginally used by Inuit. After about 1850, the mission's attitude toward Settlers (now, mainly second generation) changed. An increasing number of Newfoundland fishermen-traders visiting the coast each summer and competition from the HBC caused most second generation Settlers to abandon efforts at trade and, instead, to concentrate on exploiting local natural resources. Beginning about 1860, the mission's liberal (and, in times of economic scarcity, excessive) extension of credit at their stores showed definite signs of upsetting the entire mission trade. The failure of Inuit to meet credit obligations and the near riots which several changes in credit procedures caused, prompted the Moravian General Synod to send Bishop L. T. Reichel on two tours (1861 and 1873) of the coast, to investigate and make reconmendations regarding the Labrador mission. While the first Settlers were admitted into the Hopedale congregation as early as 1857, one of Brother Reichel's reconmendations was that the mission open a Settler station south of Hopedale. According to Kleivan 54 (1966:101-102), Reichel found that Settlers were anxious to baptize their children and again hear their mother tongue. In addition, Kleivan writes that, The Settler's Eskimo wives, however, wished to resume their former connection with the congregations. From a number of notations in the mission reports, we understand that the men, as they become older and see the children grow up, 101).fe61 a need for contact with the church (Kleivan 1966: It is also clear that by the time of Reichel's second tour (1873), the number of Settlers had greatly increased, particularly south of Hopedale (Kleivan 1966:93), and that given the economic burdens facing the mission, Settler trade at mission stores may well have been viewed by the missionaries as a welcome relief. From the mission perspective then, the establishment of Makkovik as a mission station in 1896 was specifically aimed at serving the dispersed Settler population between Hopedale and Cape Harrison and also, to some extent, as providing a southern buffer against further white encroachment on Inuit communities further north. Makkovik: Historical Notes The mission's choice of Makkovik as the location for their southern Settler station must be considered somewhat arbitrary. Prior to the establishment of the mission station, Makkovik had been indistinguishable from the other Settler homesteads along the southern portion of the north Labrador coast. Its original resident, Torsten Andersen, was a Norwegian who, after working for the HBC at Rigolet and Kaipokok (see Map I), had married a woman of "part native 55 descent" (Fonhus 1968), left the Company, and built a house at Flounder Bight (now Makkovik harbour). The exact date when Andersen settled at Mokkovik harbour is uncertain but it was probably in the late 18505. In any event, after the HBC closed its Kaipokok Post (1878), Andersen began purchasing supplies from Newfoundland fisher- men and reselling them to Settler (and the several Inuit) families south of Hopedale. In addition to trading, he supported his wife and ten children by hunting and fishing. Packard, who visited Makkovik during the summer of 1864, describes Andersen as fishing for trout and salmon and as having killed some fifteen caribou during the previous winter (1891:193-194). Packard also remarks that a "partly educated" Inuk lived alongside Andersen and it is probable that Makkovik's earliest two neighbours learned much from each other. It was mentioned above that the mission's choice of Makkovik was somewhat arbitrary. This statement requires some explanation. In 1892, 177 of Hopedale's Moravian congregation of 352 were Settlers (Davey 1905:248) most of these lived at one of the dozen or so (the exact number is uncertain) homesteads between Hopedale and Cape Harrison. Data are not available as to Makkovik's precise population that year but it probably did not exceed fifteen people; certainly other homesteads contained as many people as Makkovik. Thus, the mission did not choose Makkovik for the size of its popula- tion. However, Makkovik's location may well have influenced the mission's choice. Andersen's homestead was approximately half way between Hopedale and Cape Harrison and nearby Kaipokok Bay and Ailik Cape each was home to several Settler families (see Map I). 56 Furthermore, Makkovik's harbour was relatively well-protected and the settlement was close to good stocks of cod fish and wood. Andersen's small store may have also influenced the mission's deci- sion, since it periodically attracted Settlers to Makkovik to trade. In fact, as I suggest below, Andersen's trading operation was the beginning of a mercantile tradition in Makkovik, a tradition which survives among his contemporary descendents. Compared to other Settlers of his period, Andersen was relatively well-off and despite the fact that he encountered financial difficulties toward the end of his life, his two youngest Sons (both of whom remained in Makkovik) acquired capital equipment and entrepreneurial skills. Thus, while similar to other Settler settlements, Andersen's home- stead was probably favoured by the mission because of its location, accessibility to wood and fish, and its small store. During the 18905 another Settler couple moved to Makkovik. Nonetheless, the settlement's population increased slowly, even after the establishment of the mission. Table 2 illustrates Makkovik's population composition and growth between 1892 and 1972. Rather than present a detailed account of Makkovik's history, in what follows I describe several of the more important socio- economic characteristics of the community as well as important "events" which led to the development of the community I observed in 1971-1972. Not unlike many small communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, cod fishing has been the mainstay of Makkovik's short economic history. Cod fish were caught either by 57 hand line (that is, by hook and line) or by cod trap during the period between late July and early September. Cod catches were salted and stored, to be sold either 'green' (that is, not sun dried) or dried. Until 1926 Makkovik cod fishermen "sold" (usually by barter- ing for supplies) their summer catch either to Newfoundland fishermen- merchants or to the Mission. TABLE 2.--Makkovik Population Composition and Growth: 1982-1972.* Year Settlers Inuit Mixed Others Total 1892 d.m. d.m. d.m. d.m. 15 (estimated) 1905 17 ll d.m. d.m. 28 1921 d.m. d.m. d.m. d.m. 32 1935 63 3 d.m d m 69 1945 d.m. d.m. d.m d.m 74 1951 d.m. d.m. d.m. d.m. 101 1963 159 140 7 18 324 1972 204 76 10 16 306 * Census materials presented in Table 2 represent the most complete and accurate demographic data available on Makkovik. The two years with complete data, 1963 and 1972, record Ben-Dor's and my own census counts. Unfortunately, data are missing (d.m.) or unavailable for the numbers of Settlers and Inuit in most other years. The category of ethnically-mixed persons includes the children of ethnically-mixed marriages who have not yet indicated a clear choice of ethnic identity (see Chapter IV for discussion). The category "others" includes "outside" administrators (e.g., missionary, government personnel, etc.) and their dependents, temporarily living and working in Makkovik. 58 An important administrative and economic event affecting the entire north coast occurred in 1926 when the Moravian trading opera- tion, on the verge of bankruptcy, leased its facilities and trading rights to the Hudson Bay Company. Unlike the Mission's trade, which had encouraged the seasonal exploitation of all marketable resources and had had a humanitarian as well as economic aim, the Company con- centrated on the fur trade--its intentions were solely to generate profit. The adverse consequences of the HBC trade in northern Labrador, a trading period which lasted until 1942, are well docu- mented (cf. Tanner 1947; Jenness 1965; Kleivan 1966). In addition to cod fishing and fur trapping (especially during the HBC years), Makkovik Settlers also depended on the autumn and spring harp seal fishery. Unlike Inuit employed in the Mission seal fishery described above, however, Makkovik Settlers owned their seal nets and rights to particular sealing 'berths' (places where seal nets were set). Such family owned sealing berths were locally recognized to belong to particular families and were inherited agnatically. Makkovik's southerly location, when compared with the northern Inuit communities of Nain, Hebron, and so on, meant that land fast ice breaks up early enough in Spring to allow harp seals to enter bays where seal nets were set (cf. Appendix I). Consequently, unlike the situation in more northerly communities (e.g., Hopedale and north--see Map I), Makkovik seal fishermen were able to net seals in Fall and Spring, potentially doubling the amount of seals taken with the same productive technology (cf. Williamson 1964). 59 As I mentioned above, Makkovik's population increased very slowly in the years following 1896. This clearly bothered the Makkovik missionaries, especially those who had served at other sta- tions where Inuit spent the winter at the stations. Furthermore, prior to establishing a mission station at Makkovik, Settlers living south of Hopedale had evidently consented to spending all or part of the year at Makkovik. Thus, in 1900, the Makkovik missionary reports with regret that, "The people are not so ready to build houses for themselves at Makkovik as they were to promise to do so when first a station was spoken of" (P.A. 1900:243). As I elaborate on below, repeated efforts by the Moravian missionaries at Makkovik to concentrate the dispersed Settler population into the community did not succeed until the 19405. Until that time, what I shall call the 'Bay Settlers' continued to live away from the mission station, in isolated and relatively independent family-based homesteads. Table 3 lists the location and population of bay Settler homesteads along the coast north and south of Makkovik, in 1935. This period may be considered the "twilight“ of the bay Settler settlement pattern. Within twenty years after these data were collected by the Government of Newfoundland, most of these people, from Tilt Cove in the south and Island Harbour Bay in the north, had moved to Makkovik. Since these people, and their children, consti- tute approximately one-half of Makkovik's contemporary Settler population and since their adaptation to Makkovik was, to some extent, shaped by their bay settlement pattern, this pattern warrants brief comment. 60 TABLE 3.--Bay Settler Homesteads and Population (1935). No. of No. of Average Place Families People Household Size Tilt Cove 1 3 3 Tessiujaluk 4 31 7.7 Seal Cove 1 9 9 Adlavik 4 15 Big Bight 3 15 7.5 Makkovik 10 66 6.6 Makkovik Bay 2 7 3.5 Ailik 3 17 5.6 Kaipokok Bay 8 38 4.7 Island Harbour 3 17 5.6 Island Harbour Bay 1 3 3 I cannot emphasize enough the independence of the tradi- tional bay Settler adaptation. While bay Settlers did enjoy contact with Newfoundland fishermen (at island fishing places in summer) and sporadic contact with other Settlers, they could not predict such contacts and were, consequently, required to allocate and manage all available resources carefully. Each family of bay Settlers became familiar with the minute environmental differences which separated them from their nearest neighbours. However, relative socio-economic independence should not be taken to infer prosperity. For example, 61 describing the poverty of bay Settlers living south of Makkovik, the Makkovik missionary writes in 1900 that, some of our people had no flour from shortly after Easter until July, with the exception of a few pounds we were able to give them, from our own supply, for the children. On May 2nd, when we reached the house in Pamialuk, where several families live together, we found them without flour, bread, tea, or molasses: in fact, they had literally nothing eatable in the house. Two of the men, had gone to Makkovik to try to get a little food. A third was out looking for partridges, and the two mothers were away picking partridge berries for a meal. The children had eaten nothing that day (P.A. 1900:246). Obviously, when faced with such lean times, bay Settlers did borrow food, either from others more fortunate or from the mission. How- ever, the ethos of their independent lifestyle tended to reduce or sharply define the circumstances under which individuals did borrow. Thus, when forced to obtain emergency staples from the Mission, bay Settlers would cut wood or do other tasks in exchange. Likewise, the Makkovik Mission report from 1913 relates how the father of a bay Settler family of five, effectively immobilized after six years of tuberculosis ('consumption'), proudly remarked that he "never once had to ask anybody for food" (P.A. 1913:629). In short, the isola- tion of bay Settler life required self-sufficiency and one's prestige was measured by his ability to obtain and budget resources so as to remain independent of others. Vogt (1955) describes a similar but more extreme case of independence among modern homesteaders in New Mexico, an independence borne more out of a persistent value on "rugged individualism" rather than, as with bay Settlers, on self- sufficiency required by isolation and ecologic-economic realities. 62 In 1919 the Moravian Mission Opened a boarding school at Makkovik. Instruction was in English and the school served Settler children along the entire north coast. The school further reinforced Makkovik's reputation as a centre, a place where one went for church and school. At Nain, another mission school where instruction was in Inuttitut served Inuit youngsters. Both mission schools thus served to perpetuate the categories 'Settler' and 'Inuit.‘ Following the province's confederation with Canada in 1949 (see below), education (in English) became compulsory for all children between the ages of seven and fourteen. Compulsory education further acted to draw dispersed Settler (and Inuit) families to the Mission stations. At Makkovik, a fire which destroyed the church and boarding school in 1947, encouraged this trend, requiring that Settler families live in the village so that their children could attend the new day school. Additional implications of confederation, such as welfare and old age subsidies, provided added incentives for families to move permanently to the central communities. Still another implication of confederation was the establish- ment of a special provincial government agency responsible for northern Labrador. Thus, in 1951, the new administrative agency, the Division of Northern Labrador Affairs (henceforth referred to as the_ Division), was established within the new Province's Department of Welfare. Since its creation, the Division's impact on northern Labrador has been all pervasive; it operates self-service retail stores and purchases local produce (e.g., fish, furs and so on) in each community. The Division also manages federal funds stipulated 63 specifically for Labrador's native pe0ples. The rationale for these funds, which play a substantial role in Makkovik's economy, requires some comment. When Newfoundland-Labrador joined Canada in 1949, advocates of confederation did not clarify whether or not the federal government would have economic responsibility for Labrador's Indians and Inuit, as it does throughout the rest of Canada (Jenness 1965:74-75). At the heart of this problem, at least with respect to Labrador Inuit, was the Newfoundland Government's inability to distinguish 'bona fide' Inuit from the Settlers with whom they had exchanged physical and cultural traits for over a century. In any case, following confedera- tion, deliberations between the provincial and federal governments resulted in Ottawa accepting a moral obligation for the cost of health care of northern Labrador's Inuit (and Settlers) and Indians. Three years after the initial agreement on health care, in 1954, the two levels of government inaugurated the first of several major cost sharing agreements. Ottawa agreed to supply most of the capital and operating costs of health, education, and general economic develop- ment in all 'Inuit' and Indian communities, funds were to be administered by the Province, primarily through the Division. Makkovik's inclusion under this plan resulted from its being a 'Moravian community' and, consequently, its being served by the Division. Thus, even before substantial numbers of Inuit were relocated to Makkovik in the late 19505, this primary Settler com- munity was, in the judgment of external administrators, the southern- most "Inuit" community in Labrador. 64 The Relocation of the Northern Inuit The relocation of the northern Inuit to Makkovik in the late 19505 presented severe problems to both Settlers and Inuit and, given the focus of this study, is an event of singular importance. Relo- cation created the situation described by Ben-Dor and myself and required each group to adapt to the fact that "strangers" were to be their neighbours. The adaptation of both Settlers and Inuit to prob- lems presented by relocation are described later. The purpose of what follows is to present the background of this most important event. Table 4 lists the p0pu1ation and relative ethnic composition of all northern Labrador communities in 1955, just prior to the relocation of the northern Inuit. TABLE 4.—-Northern Labrador Communities: 1955. Relative Ethnic Community Population Composition Moravian Mission Stations: Makkovik 100 C Hopedale 200 A Nain 310 A Hebron 208 8 Communities (or Areas) without Moravian Mission Stations: Kaipokok Bay 160 C Davis Inlet 130 D Nutak-Okak Bay 202 B Inuit and Settler Community Primarily Inuit Primarily Settler Primarily Naskapi Indian Key to Relative Ethnic Composition: A B C D 65 Prior to relocation, the Inuit community of Hebron was the most northern village on the coast. Its remote location increased the cost of providing an ever-increasing number of services character- istic of the post-confederation era. However, several other factors were also responsible for the decision to abandon the 129 year old Moravian Mission station. For example, to a greater extent than in other Moravian stations, the social cohesion of Hebron had been severally disrupted by the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic, in which 150 of Hebron's 220 Inuit had died. Following the epidemic, the mis- sionaries encouraged Inuit from other Mission stations and from isolated districts (where, in some cases, Inuit had not yet converted to the Moravian religion) to repopulate Hebron. Thus, after 1919, the population of what may be called "new Hebron" was described as "more of a composite congregation than the others of the coast" (P.A. 1924:334). More explicitely, Kleivan describes the social character of this composite population as follows: Other data also make it justifiable to say that from a sociological standpoint there are less grounds for speaking of the Hebron Eskimos as a unit, than is the case with the Eskimos of Nain and Hopedale, who have a more homogeneous background (1966:31). Hebron's composite population made the community difficult for Moravians to administer during the forty years (1919-1959) following the epidemic. 0f more concern here, however, is the fact that abandonment of the community and relocation of its population exacerbated Hebron's already acephalous political character, impeding the adaptation of relocated Inuit to Makkovik. 66 Another factor in the decision to close down Hebron was the community's barren setting, approximately thirty miles north of the closest stands of firewood. As Kleivan (1964) has cogently argued, following the transition of house type and heating fuel (from seal fat to wood) in the last century, the inaccessibility of firewood severely taxed the energy and efficiency of Inuit work groups. None- theless, even after this transition, Inuit appear to have tolerated the increased amount of time required to secure heating fuel, in exchange for other, more positive, characteristics of Hebron's set— ting, notably its accessibility to good catches of seals and fish. Perhaps more important than Inuit attitudes about Hebron's location were those of missionaries who continually complained about the lack of firewood and equated the fuel problem, rightly or wrongly, with its effects on Inuit disease. For example, in 1952, the Hebron missionary comments on these problems by saying that “This is the curse of Hebron that, owing to the lack of fuel our people are unable to keep their so-called houses clean or warm" (P.A. 1952, quoted from Kleivan 1966:192). Now keeping these facts explaining the decision to close Hebron in abeyance, at least for the moment, let us briefly consider the decision to close Okak. Okak lost 207 of its 263 Inuit in the 1918-1919 epidemic. This caused the Mission to close its Okak station but the extremely high natural resource base (e.g., various species of seals, cod fish, arctic char, wood, fur-bearing animals, etc.) of the Nutak-Okak Bay area caused it to be voluntarily repopulated (primarily by Hopedale and Nain Inuit but also by one Makkovik Settler couple--see Chapter 67 IV) between the 19205 and 19505. The area's rich resource base and immigration to it subsequently prompted the Hudson Bay Company and later the Division to operate trading stores at Nutak. The decision to close the Division's Nutak store in 1956 and to relocate its clientele south was therefore not based on limitations of the area's environment. Rather, the decision was explained in terms of reducing the number of settlements in northern Labrador in order to provide better services. In addition, the Division was skeptical about the future of hunting, fishing, and trapping as an economic adaptation and sought instead to transform the people of northern Labrador into wage earners. At the time, the economic future and labour demands of northern Labrador appeared to be in the southern part of the region, either with military base construction or with potential lumber of uranium mining developments in the Makkovik-Kaipokok area. The closing of the Division store at Nutak in 1956 affected about 200 people living in the Nutak-Okak Bay area. All but about 14 of these were Inuit. Some chose to move north to Hebron rather than be settled further south but eventually most moved to Nain and to a lesser extent, Hopedale, Makkovik, North West River, or Happy Valley. Makkovik received 22 of these people during the summer and fall of 1956. Of these, 12 are Inuit, seven are Settler, and three are individuals of mixed ethnic background. Three years later, the Moravian Mission, the Division, and the International Grenfell Association (the IGA--a health organiza- tion, supported by Provincial funding, which serves most of Labrador 68 and parts of northern Newfoundland) closed their operations at Hebron and resettled that community's approximately 235 Inuit in Hopedale, Nain, and Makkovik. The unilateral decision of administrators to close Hebron against the wishes of its population is underlined by the fact that Inuit were informed of the decision inside church, where established rules prohibited critical discussion of the matter. Makkovik was the final destination for many of what missionaries and Makkovik Settlers came to refer to as the 'Hebron people.’ In all, some 130 Inuit arrived in Makkovik between 1958 and 1961. The Moravian Mission, with the consent of local Settlers, decided that housing for the Hebron Inuit be erected in a previously uninhabited section of the village, nearly one mile from the mission compound and well away from the Settler houses (see Map 11: Makkovik). One may suspect that the Mission believed that physical separation would provide a sense of 'neighbourhood' for Inuit and would thus ease their adaptation to their new social and ecological setting. In 1960, the Makkovik missionary writes that, We can report that the settle down of our brethren and sisters from Hebron is almost finished. More houses were built this summer, so that "Hebron" is a little village for itself. What has to be done now is to bring those two "villages" together into one congregation and that is a task for itself and will take years. Makkovik is a settler's settlement, formed by settlers in rules and regulations. Our Hebron people have to fit themselves into this situation and our Makkovik folks try to make them room as we hope in their hearts (P.A. 1960:15). Ben-Dor's multicellular argument documents the failure of these two "villages" to form one common, interacting community. As indicated in Chapter I, my research endorses this aspect of Ben-Dor's study 69 xw>oxxwz1d an: WIAIA 1.8.3.5.“ .. .ooow. no. a no www 6&0 $52.. 29.35 00 0 LC‘Z’ ./ fly 52.553 aw \ o 03.8"“..50 aumwcmflpmm. o D 02.02:: 0 9.2.93» be .00 @328 e be 90/ a no... . 1 . 1 b 0%) 5.5958333»: .5332?! an 8...... g. . o 00 5 re . 63¢ .3320 . a 0 O O “NaP >I—=_J 5.... 62.2. v. _ >Ov_v_ pp< .Aco cm ecu .mgmaepn veoume .mmcpgoms mcvgmmzv mama? xgzxap me mmmcmaxm guam op memwms emmmcmaxm xguczme .2 xsommumo .amopocgoma m>wuuzuoea eo cowupucoo can new; on» me ppm: mm copumemcwmcou can? mmowuumeq covumNvaua ewes» use memnsme v—ogmmao; we Logan: on“ mcwxm» :Pmmm .mmumewumm gaze; mew mmmcmaxm pp< .u_o;mm=o; some cw mFe=u_>wucv mo magnum; use mmumuoeen mcwucag wouesmumm new czocx we» no women wee .mozuoea .muop co moapm> pews mm guam memguo .mpnmwpmg ape_em was» wee new museum; Pwucaou so covmw>wa son» cmxmu mew Ammcwcemm a“; co cospem .mcwxm poem mo mmpmm ..m.mv mmapm> xeeumcos camaemu .mmmsocoum upoemmao; mpasmm mumeauum mvm>oen o» Am—nwmmoasw yo: wwv uFauvmmvu z—meoeuxm up «H oo.oem oo.mee oo.wmm oo.meem Az maeas av oeooee uoz .o oo.oe- oo.oemm oo.m-m oo.om~e momeoaxo Payee .z oo.oom oo.oom oo.oom oo.oom mmmcoaxm xevczm .z oo.oe¢— oo.o¢m~ oo.mnp~ oo.o~p~ mmmcmaxw upozmmaoz .4 oo.ooo oo.oom oo.omm oo.oe_p .gumu .uoeq mumoo .emao .x oo.ooe oo.oo~ oo.oo~ oo.oom .gump .uoea mumou .aeu .a mmmcmmxm oo.ommm oo.mo~e oo.mm¢m oo.m-m «soon? mmoem\peuop .H oo.o~_m oo.m~em oo.ww~ co.m~m Nuupump mpcmsxea .aueum .: . oo.o~ oo.~m oo.mem acmEAoPQEm pwocaou emsuo .w . oo.o_ oo.ovm oo.oem Nump sauce: a“; .m i . oo.ooe oo.o~p_ N~m_ emucwz um: .m - . oo.mwop oo.om~ —Nmp __am\gmesam .nm_ was: cowmw>wo .o co.o~ oo.mem oo.eem oo.mem .eoee aepesoo. o=Pa> “no: .u oo.o~ oo.mup oo.mm oo.mnm Nu-_mmp mcwxm _mmm .m oo.o~m oo.ome oc.me_ oo.muop pnmp mmpmm uaoep\:ospmm .< mueaom wEou:~ Ampaomg mv Ampaomg wv Ampgcma my Am—noma o_v .Emu awacu >H .Eae “wee“ HHH .Emu .uumm HH .Eae .euom H .momsocoum epogmmaoz xw>oxxoz mpnsem nmuesrummiu.op u4m

e=m cecaeemoEmo use mcwmao: o>wuez: .Louesam4 use ucmpneaoezmz eo :owumwuomm< m>wuez "mumaom ANN.P~V mm Raw.mv N gazes eo\u:m Anm.~v P Afim.mmv NF Loewe: seem Loewe: mmzuo—u Axe.-v ~_ Aam.¢~v mp Awm.~ e Lmwagm new gauge mcvxeoz cm Auw.mV m Aam.evvmm .gmNmmeu Lounge memmm eoumemmwemmm emNmmem eo\ccm goumgwmpemmm Aem.mov em AR..m_V m A&~.mpv A Aem._v _ __aa Paoeeoeu “opeoe em=_e poeeoe Aem.pv F Axm.emv m— Axm._v F ANN.PNV em eosoem nae eeam “moeuepeoeu meeeuem emzmc< oz emsuwmz aeaxae eo mucwcwucm new weak maze .mmmpinmewum agnxaq xw>oxxmzni.~p m4m